Abortion and sympathy, men and women
Today I was sent a link to this this piece, which discusses the enraged reaction of some radical feminists to the idea of sympathy cards (or even sympathy itself) for men whose female significant others have had abortions and are grieving about it.
My first response was to think the entire concept of abortion sympathy cards for anyone to be exceedingly odd. My second was extreme annoyance.
Maybe I’m just is a pissy mood today, but women demonizing men and men demonizing women gets my goat. The rage expressed towards men by these women makes me wonder why on earth any of them would want to have heterosexual sex in the first place (I don’t know how many of the most rabid are actually doing that, but I would assume it’s at least a fair percentage).
The same is true, by the way, of those men who spend a great deal of blogosphere time dissing women in general because they think they’re all exploitative golddiggers who will invariably use and abuse men, so it behooves men to play the abuse game better and exploit women first. (I’ve briefly visited a couple of such blogs on occasion, but have happily forgotten their exact names so I can’t provide them).
Why bother, if you hate the opposite sex so much? Yeah, I know the sexual and aggressive/power impulses can be allied, but how much fun could it possibly be (for most supposedly non-psychopathic people) to have sex with someone they absolutely despise?
A long long time ago, with the advent of the Pill, I very naively thought that the new availability of reliable birth control that didn’t have to be used during the actual act of sex would mean that unwanted pregnancies would be few and far between, and abortions very rare. Ha! That dream—of control of pregnancy and limitation of children for the most part to those wanted by both the man and the woman—was, and still is, theoretically within reach, but in actuality (human nature and sex being what they are) far far away from realization.
And although one might think most people ought to understand that an unwanted pregnancy is not a matter of little import to either the potential mother or potential father, whatever one’s position on abortion rights, and that both have some skin in the game, this seems to often be a difficult concept to grasp or accept. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, though if more men and women could muster up some true sympathy—that is, empathy, compassion, and understanding—for the problems each group faces in dealing with the other?
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the so-called “sexual revolution” was a double-edged sword. It promised much, and although it did give couples the tools to responsibly plan pregnancies together if they decide to use them, it failed to deliver almost everything except the freedom to hook up more readily with people we don’t know very well, and probably don’t like very much, and to experience the consequences.
[NOTE: I’ve ruminated before on some related issues (here and here).]
Remember the Post-Abortive Men (PAM)? Back in 2008 they were featured on the front page of the LA Times, and for those who may have missed it, PAM is both a non-stick cooking spray and a recovery movement for sperm distributors who claim to have been robbed of their inadvertent patriarchy by Planned Parenthood. It involves a lot of activism and role play, such as naming their imaginary children, scheduling playdates in Ramada Inn ballrooms with other ghost dads, and issuing press releases in which the PAMs threaten to sob until abortion is sent back to the alleys and basements where it belongs.
When men are widely recognized as victims [of abortion], “that will change society.”
But the activists leading the men’s movement make clear they’re not relying on statistics to make their case. They’re counting on the power of men’s tears.
The context: “I didn’t want to marry your mother, or help her raise a child, but I did want to force her to carry one to term in order to increase my annual Fathers Day greeting card yield.”
Neo,
Your comment about wanted children (theoretically possible but far from realization) is also a comment on the impossibility of a socialist utopia and all other theories of ideal human existence for exactly the same reason (human nature being what it is . . .).
I keep thinking of Katherine Hepburn’s response to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen: “I thought human nature is what we were put on this earth to overcome.”
Both the far right and the far left busybodies have yet to learn that one simply can not legislate human nature.
Neo,
You have just touched on a number of issues that were addressed in Pope Paul’s prescient but much-maligned encyclical Humanae Vitae, issued around the birth of the birth control pill back in the 1960s:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Several decades later, it sure looks like he was right.
Janet Smith of the University of Dallas has addressed this subject in a recent book and a number of articles. An excerpt from one of her articles is here:
“Pope Paul VI made four rather general “prophecies” about what would happen if the Church’s teaching on contraception were ignored.
Infidelity and moral decline
“The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would “lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” That there has been a widespread decline in morality, especially sexual morality, in the last 25 years, is very difficult to deny. The increase in the number of divorces, abortion, our-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases should convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our age.
“There is no question that contraception is behind much of this trouble. Contraception has made sexual activity a much more popular option that it was when the fear of pregnancy deterred a great number of young men and women from engaging in premarital sexual intercourse. The availability of contraception has led them to believe that they can engage in premarital sexual activity “responsibly.” But teenagers are about as responsible in their use of contraception as they are in all other phases of their lives–such as making their beds, cleaning their rooms and getting their homework done on time.
Lost Respect for Women
“Paul VI also argued that “the man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” This concern reflects what has come to be known as a “personalist” understanding of morality. The personalist understanding of wrongdoing is based upon respect for the dignity of the human person. The Pope realized that the Church’s teaching on contraception is designed to protect the good of conjugal love. When spouses violate this good, they do not act in accord with their innate dignity and thus they endanger their own happiness. Treating their bodies as mechanical instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes, they risk treating each other as objects of pleasure.
Abuse of Power
“Paul VI also observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” The history of the family-planning programs in the Third World is a sobering testimony to this reality. In Third World countries many people undergo sterilization unaware of what they are doing. The forced abortion program in China shows the stark extreme toward which governments will take population programs. Moreover, few people are willing to recognize the growing evidence that many parts of the world face not overpopulation, but underpopulation. It will take years to reverse the “anti-child” mentality now entrenched in many societies.
Unlimited Dominion
“Pope Paul’s final warning was that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. Sterilization is now the most widely used form of contraception in the U.S.; individuals are so convinced of their rights to control their own bodies that they do not hesitate to alter even their own physical make-up.
“The desire for unlimited dominion over one’s own body extends beyond contraception. The production of “test-tube babies” is another indication of the refusal to accept the body’s limitations; so too are euthanasia and the use of organs transplanted from those who are “nearly” dead. We seek to adjust the body to our desires and timetables, rather than adjusting ourselves to its needs.”
http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm
OK, well the Pope is taking the wrong tact on this one.
Consider that Humans have babies. Because they are bored. Because babies are cute! Because a man in a funny hat tells me I shouldn’t use birth control. Because I am awesome and the world needs to be gifted with more versions of me. Whatever.
.
THAT’S where the focus needs to be. We need a world-wide plan to reduce birth rates and arrive at a stable population. We should not ban or limit child birth directly. But we should progressively tax for number of children. Make it so that having two or more children is so prohibitively, ridiculously expensive that citizens will choose to have one and no more. And incentivize them to have no children. Provide generous tax breaks for those who complete their entire existence and do not have offspring. Those people are the true heroes in our society. Not the ridiculous breeders who sincerely believe that their bleating offspring are a miraculous gift from god to the world.
.
“Aren’t my babies adorable?!”
.
Sure. Now get them each a McMansion and three SUVs. And let’s geoengineer the entire globe because you can’t bear the thought of completing your mundane existence without six kids to adore you.
The number one thing that you can do to change our world for the better is have fewer children. No amount of recycling, Prius driving, solar power, carbon offsetting, railing big business can compare. All of that pales to just gaining mastery over your genitals.
“The number one thing that you can do to change our world for the better is have fewer children.”
This sounds like a whacky environmentalist lamenting the human carbon footprint.
After the govt tells me how many children I’m permitted to have (by way of prohibitive taxation) then it can move on to telling me how much water I should have in my toilet tank, what kind of light bulbs I must use, whether or not I should be forced to wear a seat belt and what kind of oil I must use for cooking.
You can’t legislate human nature, but they try, they really try!
I do like this line!
“I thought human nature is what we were put on this earth to overcome.”
Sounds like Pablo’s parents should have listened to him in the womb…
“Sounds like Pablo’s parents should have listened to him in the womb…”
According to the teachings of Mary and the Majik Baby, I’d be in a better place right now. So thanks.
Pablo: Your last sentence, “I didn’t want to marry your mother, or help her raise a child, but I did want to force her to carry one to term in order to increase my annual Fathers Day greeting card yield,” seems to assume that these men were unwilling to marry a woman who was willing to marry them and then bear the child, if only the father would agree.
Although this certainly fits the case of a significant number, it by no means covers the territory. Many women want neither to marry the father nor to have the child even if the father is offering to cooperate in that endeavor. Many married women have abortions against the wishes of their husbands who happen to be the fathers of their unborn children. This is the unfortunate reality, and there is no simple solution . Giving a father/huband the right to somehow compel a woman to have an unwanted child is not a good response either. Unless couples are on the same page about whether they want children, and practice virtually fail-safe birth control, the problems will persist and even be quite common.
Neo,
You’re right. The Life zealots chose to exploit that particular category in this case. After much research on potentail impact and demographics, no doubt. The scenarios are as endless as thay are unfortunate…
but how much fun could it possibly be (for most supposedly non-psychopathic people) to have sex with someone they absolutely despise?
For a woman, that would probably be difficult, unless she wanted to make a false accusation of rape.
For the typical man, it would boil down to how hot is she? I’ve met a woman who, to use Ace’s terminology is a complete scrunt – at least in my estimation. She’s nasty, mean, and not particularly fun to be around. But she’s smokin’ hot, and if she where to offer me a roll in the hay, I’d probably have to think long and hard about the offer.
I think I’m experienced enough to say “no”, but I’d certainly be tempted. And if it happened, I wouldn’t be putting anything loving, caring or sweet into it. It would be about me and getting mine, and the devil take the hindmost.
One advantage of this is that you’re not going to “fall in love” with the other person, even if the sex is amazingly good.
Oh, and that cartoon is obviously 5 years old. A contemporary version might have the woman ask about his blog, and he might respond with “I just twittered about it”.
bleh . Why all the hating ??
I love women.
I actually think that men need to upgrade themselves quite a bit.
I see all my neighbors and I see men who ‘reside’ in a home with their wives – but barely contribute as a father and a husband.
It’s sad. Men have a lot to learn. It takes a lot to run a household. Golfing/Sitting/Watching TV doesn’t do it.
If I were a woman – I’d have one prerequisite. That prerequisite would be that the man were like ME ! 😉
An equal contributor…
I R A Darth Aggie: don’t be too sure the man always gets off scot free in that exchange. There are quite a number of men not in love with, but nevertheless obsessed with and in thrall to, women they despise but with whom the sex is “smokin’ hot.” Same for women, actually—except the women are more likely to label the feeling they have towards the man in question “love.” Torch songs are all about that kind of thing.
To Pablo-
“The Life zealots chose to exploit….”
“Because a man in a funny hat tells me I shouldn’t use birth control.”
“According to the teachings of Mary and the Majik Baby….”
Why is it that liberals resort to name calling and other non-mature responses when they have no facts to dialog on?
How true the saying:
Matthew 7:16-20, “You will know them by their fruits.
Mike,
You’re calling me a Liberal based on nothing other than a few quotes from a blog. Look within.
No quotes Pablo. Unless you were trying for satire unsuccessfully, you gave the clear impression of advocating positions quite in line with environmentally approved ones.
In addition, your proposed ‘solution’ of punitive taxation for a couple wanting more than one child is antithetical to the Conservative/Libertarian point of view. It’s also unconstitutional and anti-liberty. Only a progressive/liberal could advance such a notion with a straight face.
Prior to your comment, “Life Zealots” only CV had brought a religious point of view into the discussion. And he only pointed out that with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, Pope Paul’s predictions of unintended consequence had proven prescient.
Perhaps you’re not a liberal on this issue but if so, you sure fooled me! I await a plausible explanation of how you could advance such notions as anything other than a liberal…
Nine things men don’t do:
1: Beg
2: Wear pretty gloves
3: Buy a card for another man
4: Tattle
5: Watch Oprah
6: Diet for their figure
7: Gloat
8: Spend money on themselves
9: Vote Democrat
It hurts some people’s brain too much if there is more than one set of ideals to keep track of. Got it GB.
We tend to only have two parties successful in politics at a time due to corporate and media influence as well as the plurality voting system. Conservatism is a traditional active force in the American and British political systems; currently, the U.S. party that leans Conservative is the Republican Party. The party that is more Liberal is the Democratic Party. That doesn’t mean that Democrats are never Conservative, or vice versa. It merely indicates a noted tendency in one direction or another.
As long as one as willing to accept that these are tendencies, and not absolutes, then they may be useful for the average person in comparing views. For example, there is hardly anyone in the Republican Party that is not by definition, Liberal in that they are willing to accept some changes for the better.
Conversely, many Democrats, even though they consider themselves Liberal “enough” are really quite Conservative and use Conservatism to appeal for votes. So while the adjective does not always fit well, it is still useful.
Going deeper, Conservatism is an ancient political philosophy espoused by Edmund Burke. Liberalism has its roots in Enlightenment Philosophy.
Study the biography of neoconservatism. It sprang from a reaction to the evolution of American Liberalism, which took a left turn in the 60’s, thereby opening up a space for “new conservatives” of which I am one. We are complicated….free you mind of stereotypes.
I’ve linked this with the title “Face It. The ‘Sexual Revolution’ Has Become Revolting”
1: Beg
2: Wear pretty gloves
3: Buy a card for another man
4: Tattle
5: Watch Oprah
6: Diet for their figure
7: Gloat
8: Spend money on themselves
9: Vote Democrat
10. Make lists of what we won’t do
The Life zealots
…
Yeah, I am pretty zealous about not allowing humans to be killed because some woman wanted to screw and got upset when it resulted in a baby.
I’m zealous about not killing any innocent human.
Not so much a zealot about the death penalty, since that involves removing a guilty threat, nor about deadly defense, but probably still a “life zealot” in your book.
Foxfier: I wasn’t aware that women could get pregnant all by themselves when they “wanted to screw.” Funny, I was under the impression a coitally-induced pregnancy usually took two people, a man and a woman, and that the man ordinarily is a not-unwilling partner in said act of screwing.
Pablo, if I thought you could stop ranting, I would be glad to answer your points one by one. But your joy in making the insult clever rather than putting that energy into thinking makes me suspect that would be wasted time. That is characteristic of a certain style of liberalism, BTW.
I should note that the arguments you put forward, at least as stated, are banal and simplistic, and not that difficult to refute. They’re fun to say though, which is why they persist. I didn’t assume you were necessarily liberal or conservative. There are libertarian types which enjoy the cachet of anti-religion as well. The ZPG tribe is usually merely misanthropic, and while that has significant overlap with liberalism, is not exclusive to it.
Your definition of conservatism is narrow. Burkean conservatism is indeed one type. But there are others.
I’m glad to go as many rounds as you wish. But as soon as you revert to showing off some new put-down to show how much more clever you are than the rest of us, the gate will close.
It’s not possible to be a true conservative without reference to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Even Kagan knows this and demonstrated it by essentially implying she was a conservative, but at the same time letting everyone know not a true conservative because she dismisses the Declaration of Independence and it’s reliance on natural rights which come from a Creator.
Neo,
I’m with you. I can’t stand the radical fems vs the unappreciated sperm donor battles. They all need a good wack on the bottom followed by being sent to their rooms without dinner. It’s all so childish and narcissistic.
NRO has its summer reading list up today, and one recommendation (from CD James, I think) was entitled Radical Homemakers, a book about a woman who decided to stay home with the kids. I followed the link to Amazon, and from what I gather, this is just another narcissist who is going down a different path. Rather than saying she was enjoying her life and learning new things about herself, she seems to have gone into a full Rousseau mode. Her lifestyle is sustainable and good for the planet. Her kids will never eat prepared foods from the supermarket. I don’t know what her husband does for a living, but I doubt that he is serving in Iraq or working as an EMT on the weekend night shift.
We need a change from “I am special. Do what I tell you.” to “I am ordinary, muddling through life like everyone else.” We need to get out of tribal and group thinking. Not all men are tyrannical opressors and not all women are gold-digging bitches.
Pablo, what are you, 15 years old?
“It is hard to escape the conclusion that the so-called “sexual revolution” was a double-edged sword.”
OMG, unintended consequences! The very thing the Pill was supposed to remove.
“”Nine things men don’t do:
1: Beg
2: Wear pretty gloves
3: Buy a card for another man
4: Tattle
5: Watch Oprah
6: Diet for their figure
7: Gloat
8: Spend money on themselves
9: Vote Democrat
10. Compliment another guy on his shoes.
11. Invite relatives to stay more than one night.
12. Watch anything on the lifetime network.
Shame…
that’s all i can say as it was forced and being forced its a perversion of the outcome that could have been otherwise.
even worse if you dig and you get around the progressive lies on the subject, you find that pretty much only the progressives wanted it.
it was their eugenics program for getting rid of blacks and Chinese (Sanger hated them big time), and to make their super race. Hitler wrote to Sangers man gamble, and Popeno. some of the German laws were translated and copied here.
the truth of the story, is very different than the mish mosh of half truths and things that almost everyone walks around and is proud to be educated knowing.
almost every common stand and line is taken and each response is almost reflexive, but in general they will not look up the real origins, the full history, and compare things and see.
the most insulting thing is that women always stood on their own their own way. since most are trained to see criticism of feminism as criticism of women, its hard to show how women always were more than feminists let them be.
if you read history, and you know it, then you sit there and you can see plain as day the selectiveness, the lying, and everything else. there is no way to hide it once the blanks are filled in.
[and when you find that at the same time there were copies of each of the icons for each country, that makes it weirder]
Erin Pizzy would be an important read, she opened the first women’s shelter for battered women. so why don’t you know her name? why isn’t such a person lauded? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
the wiki thing is a wash… like the updated abortion clinic missives on Sanger. they USED to not mention that abortion for feminists was the power for women to choose the future.
[now they just get off that women decide person hood. that is, until the mother decides to have the baby, its a growth, like a wart. this is why the mother can kill her baby up till the day before birth and not go to jail, but if she asks her boyfriend to punch her, he get murder]
the reason why pizzey was outed and threatened and so forth (and mentions how the earliest meetings of feminists were soviet style with comrad, and all that), was that she didnt belive the ideological marxist reason which now dominates (or else).
she believed that some women were masochists. that they would seek abusive relationships over and over like some form of addiction. in the top and bottom community you get talk where they mention how someone who wants such, but hasn’t come to terms with it as a controlled pastime will seek it in other ways. anyway, this is verboten. it had to be men and only men, the women are innocent.
also pizzy shelters and thoughts also saw abused men. something that feminists deny. however pizzy really wanted to help, while the feminists wanted a cause that they can control that would fire up women, and then they could pretend to be their voice, while inserting their desires then telling the women this was what the other women wanted and if you didn’t you were out.
to read Sangers autobiography is an eye opener. but if you have read all these early people in the history, you would see a very common thread throughout. that they all celebrated (and still do) really questionable people and ideas. (and to find out the real numbers behind arguments is to become incensed).
take the man who ‘invented’ Kwanzaa (Maulana Karenga)… nice guy. was in prison for crushing a womans toe in a vice, and hurt another with an iron.
dig and like the myth of the catholic church killing millions during the inquisition (actual number 300), you will also read about millions of abortions in one year before legalization..
most wont believe that we had progressive sterilization laws and other such things up until near the 1980… but that fit progressives and others desires. still does.
and most dont know about moses harmon, and the earliest of the progressives.
Moses Harman (October 12, 1830 — January 30, 1910) was an American schoolteacher and publisher notable for his staunch support for women’s rights. He was prosecuted under the Comstock Law for content published in his anarchist periodical Lucifer the Lightbearer. He was arrested and jailed multiple times for publishing allegedly obscene material. His daughter, Lillian Harman, was also a notable anarchist.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harman has been credited as one of the founders of what became the eugenics movement. “He gave the spur and start to this effort. Through his journals, Lucifer, the Light Bearer, later re-christened The Eugenic Magazine, encouraged by a small circle of earnest men and women, he dug down below the surface endeavoring to bring forth a stronger and better type of men”
from the very first days, day one, the movement was not about women but about perfecting the race.
the whole male hatred marriage has to be destroyed and make this a commune came from them.
it was them that first said there was no such thing as obscenity. no boundaries. and why children should learn to have sex. you know, to be like the lie of living like your in Samoa.
today you look at the anarchists smashing stuff to change things and think its wrong, and wonder why they think its ok..
well its all tied to the original ideas of these people back then and has not changed. living communally. everyone having sex with everyone as there is no marraige. no family so that kids are raised communally, so as not to intefere with all manner of sex, as there was no such thing as obsinity, or perversion and so on.
all of it fits together, if you know where all the pieces belong… they love the people smashing things because they are anarchists, and communal people.
its what the feminists, and other groups have all been working towards… hookup culture was not an accident, it was an end.
but you wouldn’t know that unless you read more than the selection they give you and go back to the roots. in russia you had the nutty kollontai..
in the US you had Harman and his daughter.
Sex Slavery by Voltairine de Cleyre “an 1890 essay supporting Harman and attacking the institution of marriage”
you think blaming men for what women wear is new?
And yet, gentlemen, you expect your wives, the creatures you say you respect and love, to wear the longest skirts and the highest necked clothing, in order to conceal the obscene human body. There is no society for the prevention of cruelty to women. And you, yourselves, though a little better, look at the heat you wear in this roasting weather! How you curse your poor body with the wool you steal from the sheep! How you punish yourselves to sit in a crowded house with coats and vests on, because dead Mme. Grundy is shocked at the “vulgarity” of shirt sleeves, or the naked arm!
and today, they blame men for dressing them the way they dress. but for that they go to the french and the idea of the hostile male gaze.
you want to know why they hate men… and who started it? it was women… not men.
its been going on so long by them that you women forgot who started the fight. the progressives who blamed men for women being buttoned up tight and not naked.
and by the 60s you burned your bras (almost none really did. more remember it than actually did it).
and now, you wear fetish clothes and still its the mens fault…
from button up shoes, and illegal ankles, to topless breasts on the street, that whole sex tramp nude thing, was not an accident.
These are the effects of your purity standard, your marriage law. This is your work — look at it! Half your children dying under five years of age, your girls insane, your married women walking corpses, your men so bad that they themselves often admit that Prostitution holds against PURITY a bond of indebtedness. This is the beautiful effect of your god, Marriage, before which Natural Desire must abase and belie itself. Be proud of it!
If, beyond these, there are those here to-night who have ever forced sexual servitude from a wife, those who have prostituted themselves in the name of Virtue, those who have brought diseased, immoral or unwelcome children to the light, without the means of provision for them, and yet will go from this hall and say, “Moses Harman is an unclean man — a man rewarded by just punishment,” then to you I say, and may the words ring deep within your ears UNTIL YOU DIE: Go on! Drive your sheep to the shambles! Crush that old, sick, crippled man beneath your juggernaut! In the name of Virtue, Purity and Morality, do it! In the names of God, Home, and Heaven, do it! In the name of the Nazarene who preached the golden rule, do it! In the names of Justice, Principle, and Honor, do it! In the names of Bravery and Magnanimity put yourself on the side of the robber in the government halls, the murderer in the political convention, the libertine in public places, the whole brute force of the police, the constabulary, the court, and the penitentiary, to persecute one poor old man who stood alone against your licensed crime! Do it. And if Moses Harman dies within your “Kansas Hell,” be satisfied when you have murdered him! Kill him! And you hasten the day when the future shall bury you ten thousand fathoms deep beneath its curses. Kill him! And the stripes upon his prison clothes shall lash you like the knout! Kill him! And the insane shall glitter hate at you with their wild eyes, the unborn babes shall cry their blood upon you, and the graves that you have filled in the name of Marriage, shall yield food for a race that will pillory you, until the memory of your atrocity has become a nameless ghost, flitting with the shades of Torquemada, Calvin and Jehovah over the horizon of the World!
all women who have sided have supported the anarchist/communist/progressive/socialist, etc…
there has never been any other kind…
Voltairine de Cleyre: Penitent Priestess of Anarchism
http://mises.org/daily/4487
She returned to Central Michigan, moved in with her mother, and began writing for a weekly freethought paper called The Progressive Age.
-=-=-=-
One thing led to another: her articles in The Progressive Age led to speaking engagements, and not many months had gone by before Voltairine de Cleyre (as she began spelling her name shortly after she began publishing), a mere girl of 19 or 20, was traipsing around Western Michigan lecturing on Tom Paine and atheism, among other topics.
so, each line is a variation on the theme… those at the top know the history in detail… those below that they use to remake society and the world, dont know, unless they take the time to find out.
you have lucifer from day one… free love and the desire for sex without responsibility… no morals, no ethics as they are unnatural. athiesm, as thats just another unnatural limit…
and the main focus was women. if you change women, they change the children.
the MOST important thing you realize if you read all this stuff is that the wacky quotes that they say today, ARE NOT WACKY.. but exactly in line with this whole thing, and by making them they are declaring to those in the know, that they know and are one with them.
those not in the know, will say that they are not important. its not like the women i know. that it must be out of context. and on and on defending them as they smirk knowing that they meant what they said and they said what they meant, and that they have idiots defending them who would oppose them if they werent so dumb and unlearned (unlike them).
so when you read allison jagger
“[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children…. The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed.” — Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
know that she is following this long progressive line going back to these other people.
see the desire to creep women out as to having children? to be like men, etc.. ALL INTENTIONAL.
By this time it was late 1887 and Voltairine was 21, a rising young star in the freethought movement. Today, those who know about freethought at all usually associate it with organized atheism, with Robert G. Ingersoll as the Madalyn Murray O’Hair of the 19th century. But in fact there was much more to freethought than that. As another expert on Voltairine’s life and work, the late Eugenia DeLamotte, has pointed out, freethought was
an eclectic movement that included atheists, agnostics, and deists as well as religious thinkers (Unitarian, transcendentalist, sometimes Quaker) who shared a scorn for religious dogma as a source of truth or authority; a rejection of biblical miracles and the divinity of Jesus; an aggressive, activist commitment to separation of church and state; and an insistence that human progress depends on the exercise of each individual’s reason with regard even to subjects held most sacred.
so the whole false separation of church and state, is theirs too…
they rise, people find out about them, they go into hiding, they wait, the old dont talk, he kids rebel, they have a new generation to move forward to progress to their goal..
its all very easy to understand…
but if you don’t start at the beginning, then you don’t get the real story…
I don’t see the problem with a sympathy card for abortion. They have cards for the death of a pet. Then again, I know two men whose wives had abortions without discussing it with them beforehand – and one was nasty enough to tell her husband during a fight about whether to redecorate a damned room. And I know more than a couple women who were pressured into having abortions by their husbands. A few chose the husband; others chose the child. I have always been disgusted by people entering marriage with lies about wanting children. It’s a sucker-punch lie when the truth comes out.
hey Pablo.
in order to have that “stable rate” as you want.
For every woman that does not have a child, another has to have 5.
put the truth in your argument and you have no place to sell your point from. you cant sell barrenness as freedom for some while selling birth and that miracle (for reasons a nihilist like you wont get till later if ever) as some form of torture.
demographics is a B, and people like you never actually think of things in a synoptic way.
you realize that we are sitting in a solar system with enough space and material for a 100 billion humans?
that you cant hurt the planet…
did you know that japan has 126,804,433 on a space around the size of California? and they havent filled up all the space yet.. yes things are crowded.. but thats in the cities…
if we invited them here, and gave them texas, they could each have an acre and there would still be 50 million acres left over. 171,904,640 acres in texas.
all the garbage ever produced in the US would fit into a cube 30 miles a side.
we are no where near exhausting ore, and some interesting work out of Brigham Young is empirically proving there is no green house effect what so ever.
be nice if people would kind of learn the sizes of things, what we actually do, and so forth.
oh.. go look it up.. the most polluted places on the planet, are in the socialist ex soviet union, and china, which is also socialist.
the US and other western capitalist states are the cleanest with pollution way lower than it was.
how you sell your birth control idea will be hard. as it will translate to wealthy people having kids indiscriminately, while poor cant afford it as they are taxed.
better just leave it alone and you progressives can stop hurting people and changing circumstances of their lives to try to make some aesthetic.
if its as meaningless as progressives say and no purpose and morals, and everything is relative. then what does anything matter? and why not just leave people alone?
I was under the impression a coitally-induced pregnancy usually took two people, a man and a woman, and that the man ordinarily is a not-unwilling partner in said act of screwing.
Woman sued for `stealing’ sperm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/woman-sued-for-stealing-sperm-1187028.html
and in a chicago case:
Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal” after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.
He said he didn’t find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state.
Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons’ attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.
what a weird world, eh?
Abortion is an evil, practically in a pure form.
It is not “like” the child sacrifice of the dark religions of the pagan world. It is the child sacrifice of the dark religion of the modern world.
A sympathy card belongs to it like a sympathy card belongs to the holocaust.
sorry i left out this part
The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn’t steal the sperm.
“She asserts that when plaintiff ‘delivered’ his sperm, it was a gift – an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee,” the decision said. “There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”
that must have been a fun one for the judge to write. [i guess it would depend on his/her temperament]
Artfldgr: what a lovely case! I followed the link, but it doesn’t explain how she did it—did she race to the fridge, spit into a beaker, and freeze it immediately? Was she a scientist?
You may note that I wrote “ordinarily” in my comment about it taking two. I also wrote “coitally-induced.” This particular case (fortunately for the human race), is neither “ordinary” nor “coitally-induced”—a phrase I originally included because I was thinking of instances of artificial insemination, under which definition I suppose this case would technically fall.
As for a woman who assures a man that she is taking birth control pills and he relies on that and yet she stops and becomes pregnant, unfortunately (for either man or woman), assurances of contraception that can fail (either through accident or willful act of the partner) are part and parcel of the risks inherent in sex. That’s why it’s best to pick somebody you can trust. And even then—is it trust, but verify?
Not on sad Stygian shore, nor in clear sheen
Of far Elysian plain, shall we meet those
Among the dead whose pupils we have been,
Nor those great shades whom we have held as foes;
No meadow of asphodel our feet shall tread,
Nor shall we look each other in the face
To love or hate each other being dead,
Hoping some praise, or fearing some disgrace.
We shall not argue saying “‘Twas thus” or “Thus,”
Our argument’s whole drift we shall forget;
Who’s right, who’s wrong, ‘twill be all one to us;
We shall not even know that we have met.
Yet meet we shall, and part, and meet again
Where dead men meet, on lips of living men.
— Samuel Butler
“Foxfier: I wasn’t aware that women could get pregnant all by themselves when they “wanted to screw.” Funny, I was under the impression a coitally-induced pregnancy usually took two people, a man and a woman, and that the man ordinarily is a not-unwilling partner in said act of screwing.”
When the male can equally abort their responsibility towards the child then I’ll buy that. Until then the female has the sole power in the whole thing – even in married couples (see the post about married women having abortions against their husbands wishes).
There *will* come a time where the courts note that it isn’t equal for the woman to be able to choose both the life of the baby *and* if the other person is financially responsible, especially given that many laws/regulations have to note that *both* parties chose the risky behavior. Women can’t have it both ways.
Women will most likely find themselves with the final decision as to abort or not but the male having the say so if they are financially liable/visitation rights. That is the price to pay for having the sole choice of killing someone else kid. At the least we are moving towards much less in child support and as the custody battles went (where the female used to have to be nearly psychotic to not get the kids) it will eventually move towards having them with some form of equal choices (though I think that the male will never get to choose if the baby is brought to term as the physical burden is on the female).
In the long run our system has always equaled out with the one that is loosing their special status angry that is occurring (they pretty much always think their special status is a given/right).
Things men don’t do:
1: Beg
2: Wear pretty gloves
3: Buy a card for another man
4: Tattle
5: Watch Oprah
6: Diet for their figure
7: Gloat
8: Spend money on themselves
9: Vote Democrat
10. Compliment another guy on his shoes.
11. Invite relatives to stay more than one night.
12. Watch anything on the lifetime network.
13. Giggle for no apparent reason.
14. Hang trinkets on the inside mirror of a car.
15. Place a box of tissues on the dash.
16. Have a COEXIST bumper sticker.
strcpy: I think you are ignoring my post, one of the points of which is that men can be harmed by the fact that women do have this power of life and death over the unborn child they are carrying. However, another point I made is that it is part of the risk of having sex with another person—it is best to make as sure as you possibly can that you can trust that person before having sex with them and giving them that power over you.
My “it is not just the woman who is doing the screwing” remark was merely directed at the commenter “Foxfier,” who seemed to be indicating that even the act of intercourse was unilateral on the part of the woman.
Everyone must take responsibility for his/her actions. When you have sex with a person you assume the risk of pregnancy. When a many has sex with a woman, he knows that she is the one who can get pregnant, and she is the one who makes the ultimate decision about whether to have the child. It will never be a fair and equal system.
Only 3 Things
My father once gave me advice. “Son,” he said, “there are three things a man does not do: he does not apologize; he does not explain; and he does not beg.
“Sorry, Dad” I said, “I wasn’t listening; would you please say all that again, please.”
Pablo:
Incentivizing them to have no children: that’s the European social welfare state.
Check out the fertility rates in the Third World. It seems to me you are being overly alarmist. We are making good progress without any such big plan. We need to improve education for women in Africa and the Muslim world. That will help do the trick: it did everywhere else.
Fertility rates:
Country Name YR1985
Latin America & Caribbean 3.68
Middle East & North Africa 5.87
South Asia 4.67
Sub-Saharan Africa 6.55
East Asia & Pacific 2.98
Country Name YR2008
Latin America & Caribbean 2.23
Middle East & North Africa 2.75
South Asia 2.88
Sub-Saharan Africa 5.11
East Asia & Pacific 1.94
(data from World Bank)
Regarding the Third World and the First World, I highly recommend this Ted Talk: Hans Rosling shows the best stats you’ve ever seen.
Disclaimer: I read all of Paul Erlich’s first works when they came out.
“strcpy: I think you are ignoring my post, one of the points of which is that men can be harmed by the fact that women do have this power of life and death over the unborn child they are carrying. However, another point I made is that it is part of the risk of having sex with another person–it is best to make as sure as you possibly can that you can trust that person before having sex with them and giving them that power over you. ”
No, I’m not. For one thing I do not know exactly what you think about what I wrote because you have not talked about it. I used it as a segue into something that always has bothered me.
The rest of what you wrote – same thing. I agree that is the current state of things, but it both should not be and will not be at some point in the foreseeable future. You obviously are not rabidly against it (I’ve seen those posts) but still have not really addressed it (nor was I really asking for that, just making a post on someone’s blog).
At worst you seem accepting of it, but then were I female I would probably shrug at the whole idea too. As a male I’m not in a position to worry over it from a personal point of view (and it would take something fairly significant to make it so), but like many women who say “it is my body I can do as I please” (and who dislike the whole idea of abortion) I find it something I do care about.
I can’t imagine having a kid and *not* being involved let alone imagine deciding to terminate that life. However I will note that the situation right now is FAR from equal.
Assistant Village Idiot,
…if I thought you could stop ranting, I would be glad to answer your points one by one…
Life must be tough for you, being so smart and all. Please don’t close the gate and deny us the benefit of a pithy and well thought out response. It’s a blog – a place to contribute your point of view, right? BTW you might check in with ShrinkWrapped on that aversion to ranting…a good rant can be cathartic.
“”be nice if people would kind of learn the sizes of things””
Artfldgr
A little off topic but Art brings up a major problem. One of accurate perspective on the issues. And media does its damndest to foster false illusions and distort the scale of things to make them more dramatic stories of dire consequences.
Just watching the Weather Channel you’d be certain something is newly amiss with an out of control mother nature (as if it was something ever in anyones control?). Well no. The same weather calamities have always been with us. We just didn’t have 24/7 airtime to fill with stuff interesting and dramatic enough so people would watch.
Take any story in the news nowadays and you’ll discover people’s perspective on it is purposely being skewed by the very media we should be able to rely on to give us a realistic view of what exactly is going on.
I’m also tired of the sexes barking at each other.
I’m extremely fortunate to have had two great women in my life, my first and second wives.
I’m extremely unfortunate to have had to buried both of them.
They gave me my children. They were tremendous companions and helpmates.
I did it the old fashioned way. Who gives a damn about intellectualizing love and having children? I sure as hell don’t.
I got married (both times) because I was madly in love, and I had babies for the same reason.
If you’re intellectualizing this stuff, you’re missing out on the greatest experience of life.
Follow your heart, your lust and your dreams. I wouldn’t change anything.
Pablo, Assistant Village Idiot and Geoffrey Britain have a long track record around here of making comments that are both smart and sensible. The same can’t be said about you.
So turn off the snark and make your point. Geoffrey made the point that you don’t sound like any conservative he has ever met. Personally, I don’t care whether you are conservative or not, and I style myself a Liberal. I also doubt you understand Burke at all. But you only dodged Geoffrey’s question. What do you stand for? If you are a conservative, as you imply, what kind?
“THAT’S where the focus needs to be. We need a world-wide plan to reduce birth rates and arrive at a stable population. We should not ban or limit child birth directly. But we should progressively tax for number of children. Make it so that having two or more children is so prohibitively, ridiculously expensive that citizens will choose to have one and no more. And incentivize them to have no children. Provide generous tax breaks for those who complete their entire existence and do not have offspring. Those people are the true heroes in our society. Not the ridiculous breeders who sincerely believe that their bleating offspring are a miraculous gift from god to the world.”
So, Pablo, if the incentives you push for work and people have no children or one child, just who is it that is going to be around to fund your social security and medicare/medicaid benefits?
What do I stand for? Is there a qualification test to blog here that I missed? Why the curious tendency for many here to categorize? Exhausting.
And to say things like “that is characteristic of a certain style of liberalism” in the spirit of ridicule isn’t smart or sensible. It implies reference to some checklist or yardstick used to determine the validity of a comment and whether it will be accepted by the “group”. It’s lazy.
I’d like to hear more about how I’m a closet Liberal because I’m pro-choice and wax secular…I do tend to snark, but only when I sense someone taking themselves a little too seriously – like you Oblio – stop defending your sewing circle and tell me what You think…
Steve – I don’t count on either SS or Med benefits. Both programs should go away.
No qualifications required to comment here at all, just an expectation of maturity and candor. Stop avoiding the question, Pablo. The regular readers here know where I stand, and my position isn’t relevant to the question of where you stand. Nevertheless, if you will answer candidly, I will try to describe my position for you.
Not sure I understand the question…lets just revel in the anonymity that a blog allows. Thanks for showing an interest, however.
Shouting Thomas,
It sounds like you have been through a lot in your life but remain optimistic about love and marriage and family. Your children are very fortunate.
Oblio – don’t monopolize opinion here, please. If just one person is interested in reading Pablo’s comments, he already won equal place in these threads with commenters you compared him to. I volunteer to be that person.
And what’s up with qualification reqs? Is this a cock fight? It’s so tiring to read “rightwingers” blasting lefties for forming cliques and for “package deal” mentality – and then engaging in exactly same behavior.
Besides – nobody is obligated to honor unreasonable requests. If someone would demand answers from me on any subjects, I’d probably make fun of their inflated sense of entitlement instead.
CV: not everything that shines is gold…
Tatyana,
You’re Russian.
No culture suffers more from animosity between men and women than Russian culture.
So, I understand your point of view.
Communism drove a stake through the heart of romantic love and marriage in Russia.
Russian men and women can barely tolerate one another enough to produce children.
We don’t all come from a culture that has suffered the psychological and spiritual devastation of Stalinism.
ST – no I am not Russian. And no, you don’t understand me – not here nor in our years-long interactions @2Blowhards.
But I came to understand you – with your series of Phillippina lovers, hatred of gays and hilarious lecturing you directed at Megan McArdle.
Oh, and -SH _ your fantasies about end of romantic love supposedly killed by Communism in Russia are as clueless as ever other speculation you engage into.
Pablo:
Pablo, I suggest you read Assistant Village Idiot’s essays on the roots of liberalism:Stick A Fork In It .
That statement reminds me of a ZPGer who fell asleep forty years ago, in the manner of Rip Van Winkle, and suddenly woke up. The world has changed. It isn’t 1970 any more. ( Worldwide fertility rate has gone from 4.7 in 1970 to 2.5 in 2008.)
FWIW, here is a link for data queries for theWorld Bank World Development Indicators database.
ST – no I am not Russian. And no, you don’t understand me – not here nor in our years-long interactions @2Blowhards.
But I came to understand you – with your series of Phillippina lovers, hatred of gays and hilarious lecturing you directed at Megan McArdle.
If you’re not Russian, you are clearly Slavic. You website is half written in Cyrillic… which you may be surprised to know I can read.
You’re still young, you’re drenched in ideology, and you don’t really understand the world in a fundamental, human way, Tatanya.
You’re clearly extremely bitter. I’m not. Yes, I am widowed from a brilliant, Filipina, my partner in business, family and art. You should study her. She was the most dynamic person I’ve ever met. I don’t have any hope of ever meeting another person with her wisdom and brilliance.
My closest friend for the past 30 years is an HIV positive gay man. All gay men do not agree with your agenda, Tatanya. You’re just imagining that they do.
Megan is a good writer. She would do herself a favor by dumping the over-intellectualization, finding a nice man and having babies.
That’s not easy to do nowadays, precisely because of the ideology that poisons your life.
I do read your website. You’re a very passionate, deep woman. I hope you find somebody to love you, the way I loved Myrna. It’s a revelation. In fact, it’s how a person finds God.
“Pablo, I suggest you read Assistant Village Idiot’s essays on the roots of liberalism:Stick A Fork In It .”
Thanks for the link. I did check it out. This: Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?
…AND I AM NOT TATANYA
How many times should I repeat that?!
I am not Slavic. That’s the reason I said I am not Russian (D’oh!)
I have no “agenda”, ST. Don’t measure people by your own failings.
ANd please, I beg you, DON”T read my blog. Ouch. I feel soiled now.
“That statement reminds me of a ZPGer who fell asleep forty years ago, in the manner of Rip Van Winkle,…”
OK, well I may owe the group an apology for some of that post. I was in a sarcastic mood because at the time, I felt like I was being beated over head by the Pope himself (post previous to that one). I’ll try to be more careful…
ANd please, I beg you, DON”T read my blog. Ouch. I feel soiled now.
Tatyana, you’re funny.
Been a long time since I encountered a woman who was so thoroughly frustrated, bitter and angry.
What a mess!
Pablo has actually answered quite well. I challenged him to either make his points or invite my refutation of the ones he already made, to be continued in sequence, as is usual in any discussion or even argument aimed at discovering an improved truth. I made no requirement that he fit any label or accept any definition of label; I merely fired three warning shots across the bow – that his style was more likely to be found on the left than on the right, that any discussion might involve complexity rather than mere exchange of slogans, and that his attempt at bullying would be ineffective.
By evading the answer, he has answered.
Tatyana – perhaps I missed some context here, but it does seem that you escalated the discussion from “pointed” to “insulting” pretty quickly.
AVI: did I?
My 1st comment, to CV: one sentence, no insults or speculation. Just a relevant idiom. ST’s response: long post consisting of mischaracterisations, false accusation, baseless statements and general patronizing and condescending tone – with no relation to my comment whatsoever. See, he just can’t conceive that someone doesn’t like him and his misogynistic, controlling, homophobic, paleo-conservative, exploitative, retrograde ways.
Ask him about pedicures he demands from his Philipina GF (which one? how many he had after the death of of his 2nd wife? ) Ask him why he doesn’t marry his wonderful subservient Asian GF? He used to rant and rave against American and European women for being too independent and advocated American men only bed Asians (as punishment to us, I guess – but of course) – ask him why he doesn’t have any more “babies” from his GF? Does he uses contraceptives? Or he makes them abort? I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter.
Glad he can read in Russian – or more likely, use babblefish – he can understand the word держиморда.
Has it occur to you I might be right? Actually, I restrained myself from expanding on the topic “not all the gold that shines” where ST is concerned since this thread is not about ST (as much as this egotistic self-congratulatory serial widower would desire) or his ridiculous “pearls of wisdom”.
What an irony when someone so drunk on “man power” as ST dares to lecture Megan McArdle who should she love – her dead dog or her gay friends or her unborn children – or me, on romantic love and relations between men and women in Russia!
Tatyana,
Happiness in love and marriage absolutely infuriates you.
What a shame!
And Tatyana,
You’re absolutely obsessed with me.
Don’t worry. I don’t want any kind of relationship with you.
I gave up long ago trying to remake women.
Cool out, kid.
AVI,
“…or invite my refutation of the ones he already made”
The invitation was tendered. We eagerly await.
AVI,
I forgot to add. This is the last invitation you’ll get from me. From now on, you’ll have to figure out what you want to refute all on your own…
And I saw nothing insulting in Tatyana’s comments. Please try not to project your thin skin on to other readers.
You’re absolutely obsessed with me.
Staple of TV comedy.
Well, yes and no, Tatyana.
This terror and hatred of love and marriage… that’s certainly the stuff of TV sitcoms.
Your histrionics are like those of a teenager who’s found out that her parents actually have a sex life.
Don’t worry, Tatyana, it won’t hurt you if the adults actually have a sex life.
Sex isn’t just reserved for people who are torturing and mocking each other. It is more dramatic that way. I’ll give your that. It’s also quite addictive.
I’ve been there, although it was 40 years ago.
Staple of TV comedy:
a girl turns her back at the pathetic blowhard with perpetual identity crisis, picks up her bag and leaves.
the blowhard looks around in disbelief, thinks for another half-minute and concludes: “she’s obsessed with me!”.
a girl turns her back at the pathetic blowhard with perpetual identity crisis, picks up her bag and leaves.
As I said, Tatyana, the notion that we’ve ever been together is a delusion of yours.
Your bags were never here with me.
Sheesh
neo-neocon –
yes, it does require a male for sexual reproduction. However, said male does not have the legal right to kill the child that results. (And, thankfully, usually goes to jail when he does it anyways.)
Thus, children dying because women willingly did a baby-making act and decided they didn’t want the baby that quite naturally resulted.
Therefore, “humans are killed because some woman wanted to screw and got upset when it resulted in a baby” is a less than genteel but wholly accurate characterization of my objection to elective abortions.
ever notice that comparitively speaking, the vileness and nasty stuff and angles come from one side infinitely more than the other? and that one side self congratulates for it? and that others tend to say, like with Israel and palestine, that both have to get together? [despite forgetting who started the whole thing back when and who has never let up and who has never changed the song and commentary]
Libs Sneer at Men Who Grieve for Their Aborted Children
[note how the whole title says “libs” but in truth, its Amanda Marcotte again…]
The concept of sympathy cards for men who lose children to abortion has induced liberal blogger Amanda Marcotte to cough up this clot of bile:
Anti-choicers [are] pretending that they just discovered they oppose abortion because it violates men’s rights over their uterine property (established by the “poke it/own it” law laid down in beer commercials).
yup… very much like Israel and Palestine…
until women muzzle women like this, nothing going to get better till it falls and some other culture is here after they clear out ours.
It doesn’t get any better in the comments section. Here’s a gem:
If a man tried to pull that crap with me, I’d tell him that if he cares about the embryo so much then he should get to work on inventing a way to transfer the pregnancy into his own body. Oh, you don’t really want this thing to leech off your body for several months? Well, I don’t either.
Another:
I think that the special sort of douchebag who would get all butthurt because his sperm was rejected is probably likely to have behaved like a complete and utter cock before the decision to abort, which may have been a big contributing factor to having the procedure done.
kind of goes with that quote where women one day wont have to give birth as a promise of feminism..
or the ones creeped out by their own biology
or, aw heck with it.
Foxfier: not wholly accurate. It would be accurate to say “because some man and woman wanted to screw and the woman got upset when it resulted in a baby.” Men who engage in acts of sex with women are presumed to know that a pregnancy and an abortion (wherein the woman has the decision-making capacity) is a possible result. That is merely a fact, not a judgment on whether that represents an ideal world.
I will point out that while people may not know anyone like this personally, this person is not as irrelevent as those people. she was the official blogger for john edwards campaign.
and i can show you wonderfully vicious quotes that are lauded… by congresswomen (who i thought were supposed to represent more than half their constituency), representatives, authors, teachrs, administraors, and policy wonks
but if you have an opinion as to how women should behave (after hearing a litanny for over 40 years of how men should behave, and have tried a lot more than women EVER did), your going to get amanda doing one of her dances on you.
i will also look at the video study done by a news team in a park in NJ… its quite telling
[its also a great representation of the different groups of women, in which neos kind of group is the one that finally did something!!! however the kicker is that each set of women in each group would say she was like most women]
Found it!
Turning the Tables
How Do People React When There’s Abuse in Public, But the Gender Roles are Reversed?
How Would You React?
abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047&page=1
to people like amanda, and her ilk, such realities complexity just doesnt exist, or is somehow some contrived or constructed thing that never happened.
kind of like the environmentalists in the UK offering death threats to a mom and dad whose child was mauled in her crib in the home it entered (mom went into the room to discover the fox chewing on the baby).
It’s the kind of sweaty summer day when you might expect tempers to be short. Even so, though, the scene on a park bench in northern New Jersey strikes bystanders as a bit odd. A young woman with fiery red hair leans over her hapless boyfriend, screaming in his face.
its interesting that they honestly reported the thing.
sometimes when a news thing doesn’t go the way the people want it to, they drop it and move on. (actually quite often that happens).
the article includes video…
so its not hard to see for yourself.
by the way, in any era in time in the modern era that we can reasonably know through grandparents and self. would a man do what that lady did walking behind the incident if he saw another man beating a women?
The abusive woman and her boyfriend are actors, hired by “Primetime” for a hidden camera experiment.
On previous shows, “Primetime” has staged scenes of abuse in which the man is the aggressor, and the woman is the victim. And in these situations, passersby — men and women — often stepped up and intervened. So producers were curious. What would happen if the tables were turned, and the man was suddenly the victim? Would people be just as willing to come to his defense?
i have seen such incidents in my life many many many more times than the reverse. [though i have heard infinitely more claims of the reverse than any of such incidents]
i will point out that the nursing manual used in the courses for abuse feature man to woman, man to child, man to elders… there is NOTHING in the manual for woman to man, woman to child, woman to elders (despite having higher rates of abuse!).
anyone learning from that book learns that women never abuse anyone. only men abuse, and that is they abuse everyone. and that COURSE MATERIAL at the graduate level. (so much for these hateful ones not having influence).
This staged scenario happens more often in real life than you may think. According to Colgate University psychology professor Carrie Keating, women abusing, even assaulting their male partners “is a big problem in this country.”
“There are some data that suggest that women actually hit more than men do,” says Keating. “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”
A report prepared for the Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year there are over 800,000 serious cases of men being physically abused by women. But the actual figures are believed to be much higher, since many men are often too embarrassed to admit being the victim of abuse by a woman.
there is a lot of that kind of data out for a lot of things, but if it doesn’t jibe with the monopoly agenda, your not likely to know about it (other things would be times of best fertility, peri-menopause, early menses from father absence, preader willi increase in father absence, deformities and downs syndrome rates in their politically favored time vs the natural age, etc).
put when most of the time you post there is a cadre of girls who will always say something to draw you into reasonableness they approve of. or to make sure that they get to insert their message with yours. never ever does what you say if its not along the right lines, gets left alone.
the same woman who will see that they are tearing palin apart for not needing them, and crediting them very much, and not listening to them and having a good life, is the same one in another breath that will argue the reasonable women thing…
[yet no matter how many times that is added, the whole society has been moving the same way and everyone is complaining and not happy, and worried now about losing freedom, lack of self control we had, dumbing down, and lots of good stuff they facilitated by stated design]
Verbal and physical abuse of men by women might be an acknowledged problem, but will people try to stop it when “Primetime”‘s hidden cameras are rolling?
no one stops Amanda, and she gets gigs and jobs and stuff for it close to progressive officials… the same reasonable women sure arent out there giving amanda what for, are they?
Mathilda was one of those bystanders. She says she didn’t think the man was in any physical danger, and could probably take care of himself. “I didn’t immediately think to protect the man at all,” she said. “It didn’t look like any harm was being done.”
technically she is right, operatively she is wrong. because the minute he defended himself, the situation would be completely reversed, the prior activity leading up would be ignored, and he would lose job, maybe family, his guns, and potentially more, like freedom and not having a record.
so in essence, being of the declared oppressor class, you let the declared oppressed beat on them. (as it was in these progressive states, though targets were different)
i will skip over lynda since i asked would ANY man anyone knows do what lynda did… i know lots of women that would…
Over two days of taping, “Primetime” watched 163 people just walk right by the actors — the abusive woman and her boyfriend. Of all those who had the chance to step up and get involved, only one group of women stopped.
and that group of women is neos reasonable women..
the rest of the women are the women the men experience and when they say stuff, no one believes.
that is if you tell this truth to the reasonable ones who would be the ones to give amandas and lyndas what fors, they dont belive you as they dont know anyone like that.
and so Amanda get political gigs. the attempted murderer of Andy Warhol can have an organization called S.C.U.M society for cutting up men… where they point out that one day, through science, women will not need men as they will be able to use two womens dna to make only women. which technically can be true… (but you know a well as i know, they would be the drones, not the rulers).
same old idea from the early 1800s..
responsible for taking away what women want
and then offering a carrot to them to get them to move
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
and now almost no woman can be authorized. the economic changes obama is making and taxes hitting next year mean women ARE more like men, they have the same choices. work, work and work. (before the men had work, work, and work, and women had stay home and work on and with family, or work, or even not work and flake off on family. ya had choices, so the progressives took them away from you).
well, nice thing about that video and their experiment is that it kind of lays the actual spectrum out and if you pretend to be in each position as the people, a kind of mental version of the judging in Rashomon, you realize a lot more.
still its a shame… nothing us guys can do, or else we confirm we are the oppressors we actually arent. nothing the reasonable women are going to do, they dont believe the audacious ones are meaningful. and nothing going to stop where we are going, as that stalemate results with the only ones that matter, voice and say what shold be are the amanda marcottes.
its kind of like a court where only the valid humans are allowed… the men don’t get any way to voice or show in this court. the perpetrators show up and make lots of noise. and the plaintiffs who have been wronged by the perpetrators have not shown up, so the harridans win by default.
go ahead, tell me Amanda isn’t a harridan…
go read her.
“Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” — Amanda Marcotte
“the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.” — Amanda Marcotte
[Regarding the Duke University False Rape Allegations Case] “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.” — Amanda Marcotte (Former Blogmaster for John Edwards’ 2008 Presidential Campaign)
she is like a very poor copy of Voltairine de Cleyre. not original at all, and isnt even half as well educated and of writ of verse!!!!!!!!!! her passion isnt even as real as Voltairine de Cleyre’s…
but mass production as their progressive philosophers point out, lowers quality in favor of quantity…
you can buy an original Stradivarius with a name depending on origin, or you can buy a cheap tin whistle.
Voltairine de Cleyre is no Stradivarius, but Amanda certainly is shrill like a tin whistle.
Pablo says “Consider that Humans have babies. Because they are bored. Because babies are cute! Because a man in a funny hat tells me I shouldn’t use birth control. Because I am awesome and the world needs to be gifted with more versions of me. Whatever.” Mind-reading. You have no knowledge of others motives.
Repeated Here: “Provide generous tax breaks for those who complete their entire existence and do not have offspring. Those people are the true heroes in our society. Not the ridiculous breeders who sincerely believe that their bleating offspring are a miraculous gift from god to the world.”
The scientific belief underneath all the insulting language is that we have too many people on the planet, and would be better off with fewer. That is a common, but not fully logical claim. The number of people any environment can support is a technology-dependent question, and cannot be answered without reference to whatever technology for food-gathering, sanitation, housing, etc is being applied. Manhattan can only support a few hunter-gatherers, it can support a million souls in an industrial society. We can imagine, in the not so distant future, improvements in food-production, housing construction, and sanitation that would make ten million possible. There is no evidence that there are too many people, only impressions.
The possible evidence – that there are many hungry people in the world – is not ridiculous, but ignores the history of population growth. When more food becomes available in any environment, the population rises to the level that can exist on it at subsistence level. That is likely an evolutionary strategy for passing on the tribe’s genes. Only in very recent history (see Gringo’s TED link by Hans Rosling) have we been able to do better, and have the food growth outpace the population growth. We have moved up one step, so that most of the new population experiences Subsistence B rather than Subsistence A – less than $1/day. Our impression that “things are worse than ever, with hunger and starvation much more widespread” ain’t true. Starvation is far closer to normal for humanity than even relative ease. What we see in the world is normal, fixable by technology over time – it is mainly political problems which prevent the feeding of the world.
If you meant carbon-footprint of new people, BTW, that is far less of a problem, though it’s a sexier topic in the West.
Tatyana – ST may have been wrong in his guesses about your real-world identity, but your “But I came to understand you – with your series of Phillippina lovers, hatred of gays…” verges into personal attack. Perhaps it does not seem that way to you, and you regard disagreement as similar enough to attack to be regarded as equivalent. I don’t think you will find that understanding to be a majority, or even a common view. (Though you are hardly the only one.) I, BTW, assumed you were a secular Jew from Russia and hadn’t given much thought to your age. I don’t know where others get their guesses.
AVI,
look at ST site or google him; I’m sure you’ll find plenty links to prove to you that what I said is simple statement of fact. Start from the link I posted. I’ll repeat it here, for your convenience. It’s 4 yo; I was not interested enough to look him up since – there might be more entertaining reading collected over the years.
I have no idea why my age entered into your last comment or what it has to do with anything, but I am indeed a secular ethnicJew, and my native language is Russian – as it was an official state language of USSR where I was born. As a Jew I was discriminated in the country of my birth, that was the reason I emigrated; to call me Russian is an offense. I never concealed this fact, but I don’t think it is any of ST’s business – and his “unmasking” me was irrelevant to my initial comment.
Which is, to put it simply:
a man who poses as a moral compass and venture to give ethical advice to women (in general, and to me in particular) has no right to do so, because he is in fact, despicable -and frankly, I agree with one of the commenters in the link to Megan’s blog, who called him a turd.
For you Art.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
neo-neocon-
If you want to get that brass-tacks technical, then “a woman got upset about the baby she was carrying and killed the child.”
Besides eugenic abortions, sex selection abortions and such, there are several IVF stories that end in the child’s death. (This us utterly ignoring cases where the male is unable to give consent, because it doesn’t change the outcome in the slightest.)
I used that phrase because it is a more polite phrasing of what several women have self-described as their motives. (Even for accuracy, I won’t throw the f-bomb around.) Apparently, being the same sex was supposed to make me agree with them about how “liberating” it was to kill your own child.
Foxfier: but our dispute was about the number of participants in the manner in which the pregnancy occurred in the first place.
Tat,
My first wife was a Ukranian Jew
That, among other reasons, is why I know Russian.
So, you’re not ethnic Russian, but you were born in the USSR!
The women still like me. You think I’m a turd. Been called a lot worse. In fact, one of the reasons women like me is that I don’t buy into your abortion, kiss gay ass agenda. I’m really hetero.
Plenty of women love that. So, doesn’t matter if you think I have an obligation to get in on the gay worship.
I get along fine with my gay friends. Kissing your ass over ideology is irrelevant.
Tatyana – yeah, the link proves your point. I had assumed your original link was to a comment here.
Age came up because someone said “you are young.” It didn’t matter to me one way or another, and merely wanted to announce that there was nothing obviously young (to my eyes) about your comments.
AVI: thank you. It’s not often I see someone graciously concedes a point to me here.
Even though you consider me OLD!
Neo-Neo
No, your objection was to an implication you read in to my statement that ONLY the woman was involved.
I said nothing about additional parties NOT being involved, since I was talking about those who actually have any legal effect on the outcome of a dead baby.
If anything, my ‘dispute’ with you is your attempt to put words in my mouth. Probably a simple different view– if I had to guess, you’ve got a pet peeve about guys somehow ‘getting away’ with being party to an unwanted pregnancy.
Strcpy accurately read my point, which you might keep in mind was a response to Pablo’s slander against those who hold human life to have value, even if they may not look exactly like us as of yet.
Foxfier: here’s my last attempt to clarify, and then I’ll leave it be. My post was an attempt to get across the idea that both sides are part of this, and I’m tired of the demonization of one side or another. Whatever your intent in your comment, the way it actually read on the face of it was that it was unilaterally a woman wanting to screw—no mention of the male as being a willing participant in the sex leading up to the pregnancy, and fully aware of the risks inherent in the act.
I don’t know how much sympathy I have for my fellow woman, sad to say. Anymore, I have to say it rests more with the guys.
I’m in my mid-forties, and my kids are all grown. I’m a widow, I suppose twice over. My first husband and the father of my eldest was a troubled man, whose mental illness became so bad I had to divorce him, and a few years later committed suicide. My second husband, the father of my other two children, died a three years ago from a massive heart attack.
I was a sexual revolution baby, but it would have been unthinkable for me to play any games when it comes to sex, reproduction, and the father of my children. Cheating is something alien to me. If I date a man and decide I want something else, I break up with him first. And wasn’t even raised in a particularly moralistic home, one politely agnostic, culturally Christian, and went to services twice a year socially.
When I reacquaint myself with schoolmates, when I am involved with talks at lunch while at work, I’m horrified. Especially by younger women. The level of contempt expressed towards men, the sense of entitlement, the giggling over betrayals – I had to listen not very long ago how a woman in another department had divorced her husband, and he was now paying child support for two children not even his, and while living now with the man who had actually fathered them. Adultery. Secret abortions by married women. The tales are so often that I woner why I am still shocked by them. And so many of these are woman I thought I knew, and in hindsight, so often I realize I should have seen the signs and turned a blind eye to it.
I have sat by and watched my oldest son go through a divorce within the past few years that was not of his choosing, to which her only reason is “I just fell out of love” and have watched her use my grandchildren and child support as a club to beat him with, all with the full co-operation of the court. She’s ruined him financially, and has reduced him to a mere visitor in his children’s lives; he barely sees them more than I do.
I repent of the way his stepfather and I raised him, to be a man, bear up, and do the right thing without complaint because the end result of all this “man up” business is killing him by inches. He wants little to do with dating, and my youngest sees what has happened to his brother, and wants nothing to do with it, either.
Something has to give. There are great wrongs being done in this country to its men, and I am very afraid that one day we may want to call on them, and their response will be “What have you ever done for me?”
And no, this is not to say it is most women doing this, but it is very far from an insignificant percentage. It is a vast majority who have no sympathy for men. And sadly to say, until it happened to my own son, and I opened my eyes to it, I was one of them.
Trudi,
i am very sorry to hear about your son.
your completely right, the guys get no sympathy. you tell your story, someone else has to jump in like a hall monitor to remind everyone that there are reasonable women out there. even you felt compelled to come back and add the tag lines we add to our speech now so the fembots don’t PC us.
which we know, but which we also know is done to make us seem like we are talking about something uncommon, rather than common. also to show that we are not violating the thought rules we are discussing all things equally, or some such nut.
also what men do doesn’t count. that is mowing the lawn, fixing things, etc… don’t count. all in an effort to get us to abandon comparative advantage and share tasks equally (which we don’t do equally well in).
then on top of it having to pay upwards of several thousand dollars a year for dating. and yet cant get a break on a hair cut because that would be unequal, but ladies night where their drinks and cover are free is ok (except now as of last week in Missouri, but the ladies and gender writers have already taken up the task to right that wrong, or wrong that right depending on which side you take) . they mostly don’t pay for drinks anyway as they usually sucker some guy out of the cost of it by application of a bit of false hope.
to be out there and in someones company thinking your maybe getting a relationship going, then you find out that your just an “intellectual whore”.
A guy (usually) with unrequited lust for a girl. The girl may keep him around for a number of reasons, including self aggrandizement, intellectual stimulation or entertainment.
then there are the ones that want someone to talk to outside their circle and you learn about things like dating to eat as a way to better economy. after all, you don’t see them more than twice its ok.
then there are the ones who have put together perfect men by piecing together several suitors (who generally don’t know which facet they are). one to shop with and go out with (often gay, but not always). another to talk to and ask questions and all that (intellectual whore). and some, as the guys would say, thug class for sex and a rush and complications/drama that make things interesting.
such go through hundreds of guys (something guys just cant do – its cost prohibitive, and when we do it its not described as liberating, needing love, what men are for, and the big winner: limiting would be oppressive), and when they are young they practice their chops on guys that have no developed yet and who aren’t socially connected (so their experiments aren’t public).
my ex takes the cake…
and look at Tiger Woods and Paul McCarthy.
the idea is one way wealth redistribution
while the reverse does happen. one recent one spending a lot of time whining she had to pay anything at all (and the world not hating her and running her out on a rail like it would do if Tiger said that).
Tiger shouldnt have cheated, yes. but the way this works the point is to destroy marraige and relationships as its women like Amanda Marcotte above who work and advocate unequal law for more equal outcome (and since they hate men equal is 99/1 not 50/50 which is why there is more women than men in the bio labs and no one is crowing about the horror of it all)
those that dont believe should go hang out or visit with the new socialist women made by progressive feminism (the only kind as the progressive part is silent)…
maybe do a sit in at a course on womens studies, where they major in half truths, and minor in wacking the men in the class into submission (they are required to be there).
of course this is all to bring us al together. make a better world, and no has nothing to do with population manipulation, and eugenics, and changing from individuals with representative government into classes and government that purports to take care of you as everything comes from it and no where else.
but if you point that out nad how close we are to the conclusion of that, they will still point out that thats not it. the people who said they would do this, and dit it, and are still a major force in it, don’t exist and they haven’t mandated living styles and attitudes being in control of womens dominant reading for 40 years. (reading that unlike news, flourished, was not rejected). or point out how they erased women who were not like them, and who often refuted them.
they have a new quality quite not described in literature before. they are Vicious, and Capricious at the same time. for if they are limited they are oppressed and so must be capricious. and will be vicious to anything like love or the object of such that stops them moving, as nothing is ever their fault, experience doesn’t count, and they are literary, musical, and artistic geniuses of the vanguard of the future. why? because they are women silly no other reason.
and its fine to wear shirts that say to throw rocks at boys. or to wear insulting bunny tees. and to declare your proud to be a slut. and dozens of other things. but if your a guy, cant have an opinion (not telling them not to do it), as that would change their behavior by making them think and be self concious and that limiting is oppression dont ya know
my fav were the stickers for a quarter at the grocery. they had all these cute sayings for the girls printed with space tape so they shine. and all of them were these sexist phrases about teasing men sexually so you can get money out of them. or how stupid they are because they want girls!! (so what attitude should a girl have towards a young guy who likes her and comes up for the first time? and we wonder why our society respects women less…)
i am so glad i have no part in all that mess.
[what about cat ladies and taxoplasmosis gondii?]
Something has to give. There are great wrongs being done in this country to its men, and I am very afraid that one day we may want to call on them, and their response will be “What have you ever done for me?”
by the way trudi. i am sad to report that that is exactly the attitude of a huge number of them. of course the girls are offended at the worst of their ranting sites (very understandable). but being told that men have no rights, are oppressors, rapists, all abusers (even young boys)…
they really dont care, they just want the offensive thing to go away.
but at places where the discourse is higher minded rather than lower minded,frustrated, and confused, you get a different picture.
the young guys feel free they dont have to earn above minimum wage, nintendo, and alcohol. with no purpose, there is no reason to be productive or more productive than women. women dont support them the way they would support women, so there is none of that.
dating is too dangerous for a large proportion of it, and so they spend a huge amount of time not with women and with diversions. the girls tend to all go for the same guys, and so the whole thing ends up like a disease vector factory. (and yes even the not so pretty girls get it as the guys are willing to “do her” if no one is around). the rads think this is women expressing their sexuality fully.
the guys don’t exercise, they are out of shape. they have high beliefs in what they can do. until they try. then go back to the artificial world. the guys that really want to have kids don’t work, as half of nothing is nothing and so that’s the most fertile tactic (and so many take that route unconsciously).
they have little hope of families, and know that if they have one little hope of being a part of the kids lives. that there is a over 90% chance that its she that starts the divorce, and that 95% she will get the kids and he will be a wage slave fearing jail for failure to pay…
so they dont want any part of someone that can clean them out and indenture them… (of course women dont think its that bad and the guys are just whining. and with immigration they dont think births are plummeting as if we have a mental infertility desease).
they vocalize that if the troops from some other place came and the girls cried help. they would point the troops in their direction. leave. stand aside.
heck the women can fight and such fighting can denude the population making a winner out of any attrition strategy.
the more comedic make jokes as to old war posters and pin up girls. “what your fighting for”, and then show pics of typical women on the street. compared to the 40s women who were still women, they laugh.
they even talk as to how the fems decided to trump up laws to make international dating hard to very risky. (or very easy to take advantage of the guy).
they noted so many guys dating foreign women in the cities. look around ny and a lot of guys you see are dating asian women (no international dating service)… so on the fems sites (like amanda’s) they claimed that these guys were all looking for submissive women, to opprese them, etc. the idea is to mobilize women on campus to make it negative to do this. [makes sense if you think that the oppressor class must go]
all women arent like this…no…
but it dont take a lot of salt to make water salty…
divided we fall
but dont tell the women, they are having a great time (and are martyrs to boot) dividing men and women up.
or so the feminists say
We need to get boys to focus on the M’s to make them productive and fit for the challenges that artfldgr and Trudi describe:
* Muscles (exercise and fitness)
* Math (science and abstract reasoning)
* Money (it makes the world go ’round: application to a career and disciplined savings)
* Mechanics (being able to do useful things with your hands)
* Music (critical for brain development and a lifelong social skill)
* Manners (social awareness, emotional control, and observation of the proprieties)
I would probably add Martial Arts to the mix to encourage self-discipline and the ability to defend oneself.
Such a young man would certainly be a catch. He wouldn’t be tempted to withdraw, and he would have enough choice to avoid some of the Bad Women, assuming he had enough discernment to recognize the Good Women. (Tricky, that.) Large groups of them would be useful and make any society safer and more productive.
As I write “Bad Women,” I think that maybe this is what this debate is all about and why it will never end: Bad Women and Good Women, Bad Men and Good Men. I don’t doubt that all these categories exist or that it matters in which of these you fall; it’s just that most of us fall somewhere between Bad and Good, depending on the moment and the perspective of the observer, and that we therefore have a lot of anxiety about how we will be judged.
Laying it all on men and essentially saying “you need to develop mind reading so you can weed out bad women” is not the answer.
When a woman, like my ex-daughter in law, makes a false accusation that is demonstrably untrue, it needs to be punished. Tricking a man about paternity needs to stop being rewarded. There are many things these men’s rights types say that, bitter or no, are valid grievances.
I have seen more than once my son in the double bind of dismissing his complaints with a flip “You need to stand up for yourself,” followed by clucking and condemnation for “attacking your child’s mother” when he does.
We women need to do right as well. And this includes breaking the Estrogen Wall of Silence. When a man walks away from a woman and a child that isn’t his, because she tried to fool him into thinking it was, it’s not “Bad Man.” It’s “Bad Mother.” When my son was hospitalized last year, it wasn’t a month before the prosecutor’s office was threatening to move him to a jail ward for unpaid child support, and yet she takes off for the summer with my granddaughter, in defiance of the parenting order, and it’s a yawner to them.
This is not right. It is wrong. And I have heard all of the statistical morality that it is only a small number of women who do this; fine then. Punish them, because most women won’t be punished. ANd if it is not a small number of women doing this, then shame on us for looking the other way.
Trudi, you misunderstand me. I have only sympathy for your son’s situation. I’m not blaming anybody for anything. Who could have known that an Ordinary Woman would turn out to be a Bad Woman? And I hope such women get the punishment they deserve (though we know not all of them will).
Oblio, i think you might misunderstand us. there is nothing wrong with the boys. they are doing what is good for the outcome… not good for social outcome, but good for outcome.
what you suggest with the M talk is that its their fault, and if they were better mates this would be ok. no. the women are the most god awful partners today, and their refusal to accept that means, they get worse over time, not better.
there is no point to earning or working hard for nothing… so they dont.
what is the carrot you offer? indentured servitude with prison for failing… the joy of the complicated life of being a ghost? maybe going to jail for sending an xmas card to your kid?
mine faked her murder, bankrupted me, and later took the kid and robbed a bank, and i had no rights.
let me know how martial arts would have helped that one? (other than put me in jail faster for her non murder as they would not have had to find people to bear false witness, my hands could have been the declared weapons).
and its not one bad accident… its person after person a majority with the same screwed up affliction and problem…
took me a long time of pain to realize that and just walk away… like those other guys… eventually i bumped into a foreign woman not raised under such and we have quite the happy life that now the politics are to upend…
Well just for the record, we have both over here. We inherited my nephew at 13 last year because both parents essentially abandoned him. For her, six children with four fathers; for him, five children with three mothers. If I had to pick a villain, I would… pick both.
And the parents of my Romanian children fell even below that. Well below.
As I work in a psych emergency unit and have many suicidal patients, the horror stories mount up. I see victim males, victim females; perp males, perp females; couples where the restraining order is largely a function of who got to the courthouse first this time. I don’t have a general sympathy for either sex at this point.
There are still females in the field who tilt very strongly toward seeing females as the default victim until proven otherwise. They tend to come out of certain schools that way. But that bias tends to get worn away pretty quickly.
AVI,
thats the attitude that Pizzy had… and i believe she was more right than the people running the mills they do now. the tales out of the shelters of women victimizing victims are real bad…
artfldgr, I never meant to say there is something wrong with the boys. I’m all for the boys. I have two of my own, young men now. I am completely aware of what they struggle against, as if it were somehow their fault that some women were treated badly 40 or 50 years ago.
Nevertheless, I don’t recommend that they become slobs or slackers as a way of going on strike. I’m talking about becoming productive, with distinctive and complementary skills. Mrs. Oblio (who is sort of a Jane Austen heroine) has been doing her best to make them Good Men.
artfldgr, I still say you should write your memoires. I want the movie rights.
Oscar Hammerstein II, Carousel, 1945
Jigger
I’ve never seen it yet to fail
I’ll never see it fail
A girl who’s in love with a virtuous man
Is doomed to weep and wail
Stonecutters cut it on stone
Woodpeckers peck it on wood
There’s nothin’ so bad for a woman
As a man who thinks he’s good!
Nice talk!
My mother used to say to me
When you grow up, my son
I hope you’re a bum like your father was
‘Cause a good man ain’t no fun!
Jigger and Men
Stonecutters cut it on stone
Woodpeckers peck it on wood
There’s nothin’ so bad for a woman
As a man who thinks he’s good!
Enoch
‘T ain’t so!
Jigger
‘T is true!
All
‘T ain’t so!
Jigger and Men
‘T is true!
Carrie and Girls
I’ve never seen it yet to fail
I’ll never see it fail
A girl who’s in love with any man
Is doomed to weep and wail.
Girl 1
They’re even worse after they marry you!
Girl 2
You oughta give ‘im that ring back, Carrie!
You’ll be better off!
Girl 3
Well, he’s a mighty, unmarried man,
You should take ‘im!
Carrie
The clock just takes your life away
There’s no relief in sight
It’s cookin’ an’ it’s scrubbin’
An’ it’s sewin’ all day
An’ God knows what in all night!
Girls
Stonecutters cut it on stone
Woodpeckers peck it on wood
There’s nothin’ so bad for a woman
As a man who’s bad or good!
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
Pingback:Washington Rebel
A former boyfriend spoke many times about how sad he was that a former girlfriend of his had had an abortion. He had begged her not to – had told her he would take his child and raise it on his own – but to no avail. This was maybe 15 or 20 years after the abortion and he was still grieving. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to acknowledge someone’s feelings in this regard, although I wonder how other people would know about the abortion and who would be the appropriate person to send the card.
It is appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I desire to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read more things about it!
Thank you for a very informative writeup. in my experience things are slighly more complicated than you make them seem. time will tell, but the problem is I do not have enough time. it is good to know we are not alone in the struggle. but you might want to reconsider some fragments in your post. after all, if it can do all that, why do we even need the rest anylonger? just a bit. cheers