... in the comments at "If men did this to women..." (##1-5) and at "A somewhat dismissive response" (##6-9):
1. "When I was growing up, the prevailing sex ed was that you,
male or female, were wholly responsible for your own birth control and
that you should never assume or believe that the other person was taking
care of it. That's not the prevailing wisdom anymore?"
2.
"Maybe all those traditionally religious people don't hate sex--maybe
they have all those prohibitions on sex outside marriage for some other
reason... It's like there was a plan for all of this or something."
3.
"Odd. This thread is odd. Are some people furious because (1) Althouse
suggests men don't go depositing sperm around women they don't love and
would despise having children with or because (2) Althouse/the law being
in favor of/upholding abortion rights?"
4. In sarcastic imitation of other commenters: "I don't wanna have babies
with the skanks I like to hose down with my sperm. Those disposable
tramps I bed should be drawn and quartered if they try to pull a fast
one on a fine, upstanding guy like me. Just where do these no-good,
dishonest women I make love to get off?"
5. About my supposedly "nasty" taunting of males who claim victimhood over their loss of control over the sperm they've released into the wild: "Heh. Oddly enough, I think that was intended to be encouraging. It's encouraging this idea that a person can be more than an animal who ruts around with whoever, even those he doesn't like or know, more than a careless, appetite feeding beast. I think it was an invitation to the recognition of the divine spark in man."
6. "I'd imagine that Althouse, Instapundit, and Dr. Helen are perfectly capable of arguing intensely about an issue and not taking it personally. Surely anyone who comments here, of all places, does the same on a regular basis!"
7. "How many of us have had it out, ripped each other apart rhetorically and gotten on perfectly well afterward? That's one of the best things about this place."
8. "As for my opinion on this small controversy: This is good. This victim man stuff was hitting a tipping point of absurdity, so the push back is well timed. I write that as someone who adores men and was raised mostly by her father. And I'm proud to say that my dearly departed father would never have advocated such a base vision for manhood, this vision that sees man as a pathetic beast who throws his sperm about with abandon and needs protecting from the women he beds."
9. "@Freeman: It's actually a venerable academic tradition. I learned about it firsthand from an oldtimer and wrote about it here. I thought about bringing up the fact that it's a hallmark of healthy academia. Whenever you see it slide in academia, the result is less rigorous work and meagerness of mind."
July 6, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
257 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 257 of 257O-kaaaaay, **now** I get it. All these comments threads have been about "Rape v. Castration."
Thanks for the clarification.
One should probably read the rest of my comment where I said they're not really at odds. Maybe the part where I point out where they are at odds. Also, actually being at odds or not is not dependent on the parties recognizing whether or not they are really at odds.
"Particularly young males who according to one study think about sex every few minutes."
That's all??? What a flawed study! ;-)
Thanks be that my little family doesn't live in that world, IRL, and most especially that our kid does not have that sort of shit inflicted on him.
Dang, folks.
Ya'll better watch out. That Reynolds guy is lurkin' around.
Freeman Hunt said...
"One should probably read the rest of my comment where I said they're not really at odds. Maybe the part where I point out where they are at odds. Also, actually being at odds or not is not dependent on the parties recognizing whether or not they are really at odds."
Thanks for clearing things up.
I followed the wily rabbit looking for Zeus. So here I am.
And why is it that I always end up at the tail-end of these discussions. Because I have plenty to say, about women, especially the ones who lawyer up over paternity. The ones who, for some unknown reason, forget to take their pills on the nights in question. These women appearing perfectly logical at all other times, suddenly forget to take their pills - or medicine.
But this thread became more about a certain person's narcissism, and I don't mean Freeman Hunts'. Because she's the reason I followed Zeus in here, she being the wily rabbit.
Otherwise, I defer to @ndspinelli. Also Crack, and others. In fact, a little too much brain power around here for me to take over.
But first off, I would like to know Freeman Hunt's IQ. Because she's a girl and girls are not supposed to be smarter than me. At least empirically.
Meanwhile, I think I hear Zeus sniffing nearby...
Sweet I-don't-know-what-to-say-at-this point. Choose one: rape v. castration?
That's a helluva [faux] Hobson's Choice.
Excuse me for rejecting the so-called options.
"bagoh20, you say the problem is uppity alphas, but when we go beta, the Althouse says man up! Which shall it be? I stand here in shorts, ready to comply."
We are all waiting for Alhouse to tell us how to be men. I'm totally paralyzed myself. I lost the operating manual to my Manjina
@William
Okay. ;)
Can't be in the thread long enough to pick up on subtleties.
rcommal,
Ken Kesey was a great writer ("One flew over the the cuckoo's nest" and "Sometimes a great notion") but he did a lot of acid. IIRC, he worked with Timothy Leary to introduce LSD to the west coast. The acid may have had a negative impact on his ability to reason.
My ex-wife cheated on me.
I left.
I got the kids, but only because she wanted to keep playing around because watching two sub-5-year-old kids is hard.
I was a single dad for 2 years.
Then I remarried.
She decided she wanted the kids back.
It didn't matter that the kids were doing great with me.
It didn't matter that the oldest wanted to stay with me (and the youngest didn't express a preference).
It didn't matter that she was caught in a lie.
It didn't matter that the custody evaluator said the kids should stay with me.
She not only got physical custody, she got full legal custody.
She uses that to cut me out of every decision she makes.
She refuses to let me talk to them on the phone, or email.
She throws away anything we send to them, like pictures, letters, etc.
She threatens to not let me see them during the summer if I don't agree to other demands.
There is nothing I can do, no matter how much I spend, that I can guarantee I get custody of my kids if I re-open a custody battle. And if I lose a 2nd custody battle, she will take that as permission to do anything she wants, including not letting me see the kids at all.
And the clearest slap across the face to me is:
The less I am allowed to see my kids, the more I have to pay her for the privilege of letting her deny even a 5 minute phone call.
This is a woman I married.
This is a woman I had children with.
This is a woman I trusted.
Sure, I should have made a better choice.
Do you tell that to all the women who get raped?
I have been raped by the legal system. What I have been through is just as degrading, just as violating, just as humiliating, just as painful, just as undeserved, and just as much of an injustice as a man raping a woman.
(If you consider that rape is such a traumatic experience due to having control of a basic element of self-identity seized from you, being made helpless to protect/retain a right or attribute most valuable to that person)
Much of my posting here is a discussion of the ideal. If you met me in person, I would probably spend more time discussing hypotheticals and allowing for exceptions. If someone came to me for advice or assistance, you wouldn't get a sermon at all.
I have a teenage son I'm trying to make sure doesn't have 20 years of his life ruined because he encountered a woman whose character was lowered (or whose low character was reinforced) by feminist hypocrisy.
I have a pre-teen daughter I'm trying to ensure has the good character to not do this to a man just because she can. The more I ponder, the more I am certain that if I want her to have good/strong character and good/strong morals, I have to ensure she rejects feminism.
And I have to do all this in less than 3 months every year, because the system cared more for maternal rights than the rights of my children.
Nathan,
That is really a sad (but not unusual) story. Like you say, it is not only bad for dad but is terrible for the kids. Men have to organize and fight for their rights. We need to explain to our sons how and why they must protect themselves.
Let's All Thank Ann Althouse (For Introducing Real Talk)
Before I entered grade school, I had the rather inglorious experiences of having been serially sexually molested by a couple of teen-agers and also having been dragged around a backyard, by the head, by a German Shepherd (the latter thing of which required a couple-so surgeries, before 1st grade, after the initial stitch-up; the money for plastic surgery prior to high school never turned up, and as it turned out, who cares? But then it mattered). Over the long run, I eventually got over both of those things at least, if only, to the extent that I have ended up both liking and respecting men and dogs and far, far more. It was quite a journey. I traversed as best I could, and reaped some truly great rewards, in consequence.
A lot of you, I know for sure, think that I'm simply full of shit and that there's nothing that I say that might be worth considering. A lot of you no doubt think that I'm just about anger, in sometimes confusing and contradictory ways. What I would say about that is that you deserve every bit of healthy skepticism that I direct at you. Every bit. Every time. And that no matter what you direct at me, and no matter what that stirs up in a very primal fashion in me, that won't change and I will still remain a survivor.
With, by the way, a long-term husband and also a kid raised by both a mom and a dad, quite vigilantly and yet not as helicopters. That was tough, too, but I have managed, FTR and FWIW.
Crack Emcee wrote:
"Oh posh. We're trapped in limited paradigms. Althouse has to think we hate gays, too, because she can't imagine anything else. That's the problem. We fight over bullshit."
What's ironic about this, is that in this very thread she laid out the exact reasoning behind traditional marriage that those of us arguing for it have stressed. She even argued that this marriage is the bedrock of society.
But then when it comes to gay marriage she suddenly forgets this rationale and argues that there is no rational
basis, and insinuates if not states outright that opposition to redefinition can only be based on bigotry towards gays.
Meaning, she's holding two contradictory opinions at the same time, based on competing ideologies.
Her traditionalism is at war with her progressivism, when it comes to marriage and abortion.
Nathan Alexander that was a very touching story, and it sounds like you got shafted big time.
Here's my impression of Ann Althouse responding to your story:
"Stop whining you beta. Let me play the worlds smallest violin while listening to you moan about your bullshit fake male problems. Cry me a river.
Victory, I sure kicked that jerks ass."
Oh, and "you should have controlled your sperm better Nathan"
Rcommal- xoxo
I wonder Nathan, during the legal proceedings did anyone happen to mention that and you and your kids got what you deserve because you lost control of your DNA? Any quality legal minds call you a "whiner", or tell you to "man up"? Maybe you didn't hear that because it's a new theory by some of our best legal minds, and their toadies.
jr565,
What's ironic about this, is that in this very thread she laid out the exact reasoning behind traditional marriage that those of us arguing for it have stressed. She even argued that this marriage is the bedrock of society.
Yep, caught that. Amazing.
But then when it comes to gay marriage she suddenly forgets this rationale and argues that there is no rational basis, and insinuates if not states outright that opposition to redefinition can only be based on bigotry towards gays.
As I said, it's all she's got.
Meaning, she's holding two contradictory opinions at the same time, based on competing ideologies.
Her traditionalism is at war with her progressivism, when it comes to marriage and abortion.
It's called cognitive dissonance, and yes, we've witnessed a classic example of it.
Reynolds' response to Althouse is excellent. Freeman made a very rational argument for Althouse's position- although Freeman is pro-life, no?
I'm not understanding why the conversation had to go into all the taunting and ugliness (you're a sheep! You are beta men!)
Why the choice to have such a vicious response?
Here's my impression of Dr. Helen's response to your story:
"That sounds like an inequity. Many men report on similar problems they have with the legal system and how they perceive it is very unequal when it comes to their rights."
One acknowledges the feelings of the aggrieved party (or at least the perception that his feelings are valid) and the other is petulant and whiny and dismissive, as if a man could have any problems at all.
And women wonder why some guys might take the Helen response over the other response.
Sorry about all that Nathan - truly diabolical, but during the legal proceedings did any quality legal minds call you a "whiner", or tell you to "man up"? Maybe you didn't hear that because it's a new prescription by at least one of our best legal minds on how to protect this:
"The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices..."
Of course, that's exactly what the men have been "whining" about: how the system facilitates destructive choices, probably the most destructive in all of family law.
The girl has rarely made such an ass of herself. OK, maybe not rarely, but rarely this cluelessly.
rcommal said:
"A lot of you, I know for sure, think that I'm simply full of shit and that there's nothing that I say that might be worth considering. A lot of you no doubt think that I'm just about anger, in sometimes confusing and contradictory ways. What I would say about that is that you deserve every bit of healthy skepticism that I direct at you. Every bit. Every time. And that no matter what you direct at me, and no matter what that stirs up in a very primal fashion in me, that won't change and I will still remain a survivor."
I can't speak for anybody else but I don't recall ever thinking that you are fos, irrelevant, angry, confusing, or contradictory (but then my memory for such stuff isn't always that great).
rcommal said:
"What I would say about that is that you deserve every bit of healthy skepticism that I direct at you. Every bit. Every time."
It sounds like you think you are always right but you must realize that you are bound to be wrong some of the time, right?
Btw, Ken Kesey was a heckuva writer, amirite?
I take an Althouse break, and I missed all of this.
The impact though is real, if we don't address this issue. Head on or dismissively.
When men don't want to be responsible fathers, 'the village' pays. I think the majority of men, if the pregnancy continues do indeed want to be a part of the child's life. They don't want to be a father who begrudges his children.
In Richmond VA, through their Responsible Fatherhood program, it costs 200 million a year on tax payers in regards to father absence. For every 1% increase in marriage rates, 'the village' saves 2 million dollars.
I'm not expecting or desiring 100% marriage rates, but every community no matter how impoverish should be over the 50% mark. If Professor Althouse states this is the backbone of society, we (as the village) needs to get out communities a calcium supplement to prevent the crippling osteoporosis.
From Richmond VA
"How should policymakers, and others respond to the large social costs and large taxpayer cost of
family fragmentation? Scafidi noted that even very small increases in stable marriage rates as a
result of government programs or community efforts to strengthen marriage would result in very
large savings for taxpayers. He noted that a 1% reduction in family fragmentation would save
the US taxpayers an estimated $1.1 billion each and every year. Using this estimate, a 1% reduction
in family fragmentation would translate into a $2 million savings every year in Richmond. See
page 5 for the 1% solution."
So how do we get men to 'man up', how do we get women to be more wise in their sexual choices?
Where does this discussion start, with young adults. How do we approach it in practical terms, not the 'wait for marriage' lecture which is meaningless for even myself as a teenager.
Birth control, in of itself, doesn't solve this issue. Control of one's body, either by choice to refrain from sex or practicing safe sex, still doesn't teach anyone the skills for a healthy sexual relationship. It's the communication and sacrifice needed in raising a child together, we've lost.
When you have a child, as a parent, YOU LOSE AUTONOMY. You lose control of yourself, the needs of the children take over.
It is more obvious in the female, but for the male, he is never attached by the umbilical cord.
Some policy ideas.... that do not require a vasectomy and freezing of sperm. Yes, it does give a man equal control and that autonomy, but it doesn't solve the issue of valuing the importance of sacrifices of parenting.
"Policy Development-the purpose of Policy Development is to identify existing or potential policy
initiatives assisting or detracting from the creation of a community culture connecting fathers to their
families.
1. Establish the 1% solution through 63.2-214.1. of the Code of Virginia, amending the code to
read that the Virginia Department of Social Services “shall” spend 1% of Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) funds to support healthy marriages and strengthening families
rather than “may”
2. Child Support Enforcement should support programs offering alternatives to incarceration
focusing on improving employability, parenting skills and healthy relationship building
3. Support incentives for marriage prior to conception; focusing on the tax code and benefits
eligibility
4. Support the removal of the felon label for non-violent offenders following incarceration and
probation to enhance employability prospects upon community reentry
5. Partner with the National Center for African American Marriage & Parenting at Hampton University
in the formation of policies designed to strengthen families and the role of parents"
I understand we value autonomy, and we don't want to impede on the rights of autonomy. But something has to give, we can't force people to parent/raise/love their children but we can still express that value in our culture/public policy.
Speaking of manning up.
Oklahoma City-area church leaders will host conference addressing the fatherless
"Sessions will focus on issues such as defining violence against women, how to treat a woman, how to have a good work ethic, personal hygiene and how to look for a job and have a successful job interview. Williams said youths will be offered free haircuts and taught how to tie a tie. He said a free lunch will be offered, followed by a “real talk” round-table discussion moderated by the Rev. Kelly Booker, senior pastor of New Union Baptist.
The conference will end with a healing service that Williams said is aimed to help young men who are hurting while trying to navigate life without their father, and also adult men who feel the pain of growing up without a father in their everyday lives."
More work then vasectomies....
Ann Althouse said...
And what on earth is your problem again? That if you leave your sperm somewhere and a woman gets pregnant and declines to abort, you might have to pay some percentage of your income to support your own child?
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
you're the intellectual equivalent of mini-mouse.
I mentioned that Althouse seems (to me) jealous of Glen Reynolds and the post was deleted. I am just repeating that to see if that was what got the post deleted. Or maybe it was cuz I said that Instapundit was far smarter, more accomplished, and more talented than Althouse.
I mentioned that Althouse stirred up a hornet's nest with her dismissive attitude towards men's rights but then posted Freeman's remarks so that Freeman would take the heat rather than Althouse. The comment was deleted. Reposting to see if that is what got the post deleted.
Not only is Reynolds correct that Ann doesn't get it - I'd add she doesn't want to get it.
She's so steeped in the silly feminist narrative that her comically contradictory suggestions seem reasonable.
Jay said...
"Not only is Reynolds correct that Ann doesn't get it - I'd add she doesn't want to get it.
She's so steeped in the silly feminist narrative that her comically contradictory suggestions seem reasonable."
It is about classic dem privileged interest groups (PIGs) politics, aka tribalism. Dem PIGs use the government to give them preferential treatment at the cost of those not in dem PIGs. Men finally realizing that they are treated unfairly and need to organize is a profound threat to Althouse's tribe and she wants to nip it in the bud.
Men ejaculate their sperm, you have control where and when you ejaculate.
Women, we ovulate. We (women )may only ovulate once a month, and even though we can monitor our fertility with awareness pretty accurately, we (women) do not control when and where we ovulate. We can't put it on pause, or hold it. We ovulate, even if we are not sexually stimulate.
So we (women) have to control, who comes in and at what time and under what conditions.
Men, be responsible for yourselves. That's not a lot to ask for.
Either man up and be a dad, or do what they do in South Korea, where you are exempt from military service if you get a vasectomy.
I didn't make the point I intended to make.
I was rushing out the door to have some fun with my kids.
The point was:
Discussions here do tend to be in a vacuum. We don't know what someone has personally experienced unless that person chooses to share it with us. And even then, you only know what they choose to share. And even then, you only get their perspective.
My story may be touching, but I wasn't trying to gin up sympathy.
The purpose was to show that, yes, I did try to be careful with my sperm. I'm not up in arms because I'm worried about some one-night stand not being an honest partner, like Freeman tried to imply all men here are complaining about.
I did everything I could to do the right thing, and I still got screwed over completely. And the reason I did was the continuum of laws designed to coddle and advance women to the expense of men.
My reaction to it was to grow beyond it. I let my ex-wife play her games. I do my best to work around her blocks, and I let my kids know what she does...but I emphasize that I don't agree with her actions, but don't hate her as a person. I use it as a lesson of morality: nothing excuses bad behavior; judge people on the basis of how they act (I could have seen her low character if I had focused on character when we were dating); seek out people with high character; model yourself after people with high character.
My ex-wife insisted I would fail without her. Instead, I have prospered (partly due to partnership with my new wife).
I am an alpha male to the extent that I am confident, self-assured, successful, emotionally stable, intelligent, capable, and live significantly within my means. I will be a millionaire and fully retired by the age of 55, and possibly as early as age 50. If I weren't an honorable man, I could have sex with as many different women of all ages as I could want.
But my concern is mostly for my kids:
My son is still learning to be a man. Even if he does everything right, the current laws are a minefield...and even worse, the laws are designed to exploit men with honor.
My daughter is still learning to be a woman. How can she develop character when current society is attempting to corrupt her into low character selfishness, i.e., feminism? Especially when the enticement is backed up by force of law?
But I guess Ann Althouse would insist that caring about your children's character and lives is "whining" and "beta".
Hey, Lyssa: you insist the laws aren't biased toward women. Will you take my case pro bono and prove it? My ex-wife's actions are clearly in violation of the judge's orders...it should be a slam dunk for you.
Baron, Thanks for the pitch, I'll; grease your palm when I see you.
VdD: ...even though I've provided him the vehicle to the ultimate pussy party. He doesn't think there are many good ones out there, so far, he is proving correct. So much for civilization.
I guess hadith #4 of the Prophet Freeman went right over your head.
...the sperm they've released into the wild...
That's kind of a funny thing to say.
Was this whole thread/idea about the sneakiness of women with whom there was no actual relationship but just some type of one-night-stand? In that case, I'd say a guy should be more careful. I thought the posts were talking about deceit perpetuated by a woman he actually knew to some extent. I don't understand why an in-depth conversation about contraceptive methods would have taken place otherwise.
Men, be responsible for yourselves.
Oh, SHUT UP! This has become annoying beyond any redemption already. Lecturing male "activists" on a white collar blog will do nothing about the single-parent rate. Implying that single mothers out there (who act on deceit) have no ethical responsibilities is the epitome of rewarding bad behavior. You're calling out men for being less than extra, extra cautious in order to give women a pass for lying. In an ethical contest between someone who lies (and doesn't mind involving the creation of a human being in her lie) and someone who "made the mistake" of trusting a liar I say the liar is the party more at fault, and the party that requires more of a burden to restitute their wrongdoing. Call me fucking crazy. Your POV is to equate women with moral agency-lacking whores. It reminds me of the "be kinder to terrorists" argument. There is more to sex and procreation than reducing men to resource providers for women of whom you are saying it wrong to even expect the simple act of not lying.
Shorter Althouse:
It's wrong to expect that women shouldn't lie.
dreams: A lot of us can agree with that or most of it but when someone feels he has been wronged are treated unfairly, he or she has a right to take up for him/herself and I don't think when they do that they are whining.
Speaking up when one is mistreated does not in itself constitute whining. It doesn't follow from that that many people who feel that they are being treated unjustly aren't wrong, and aren't whiners. There are also people who bring a lot of their own extraneous baggage into a just cause, co-opting it into a butthurt therapy session that alienates sympathetic bystanders. Every just cause accretes barnacles, and sometimes those barnacles are real whiners.
And just as the fact society has higher expectations of sweetness and agreebleness from women than from men, doesn't mean that you aren't an insufferable cunt, it doesn't follow that social expectations of male stoicism means you aren't a whiny bitch.
Lying is an unfortunately essential part to most people's sense of seduction and "mystique", and Althouse would sooner be dragged kicking and screaming through the gates of hell than give that up.
Althouse's "Women should lack moral agency in life creation" argument is kind of like the ultimate assertion of passivity on their part.
They are morally passive.
Kind of like those poor terrorists against whom we've transgressed by committing the mortal sin of making them angry!
Sharpen up, guys. Women are soft little creatures, incapable of thinking and acting in morally responsible ways. It is a sin against chivalry and genteelness to believe otherwise.
Time to take your right to vote away!
They also deleted my post where I said the jealousy of Dr Helen is palpable.
It is particularly ironic considering how the Insta-nerd had always pimped and pumped this blog.
Just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished.
They also deleted my post where I said the jealousy of Dr Helen is palpable.
It is particularly ironic considering how the Insta-nerd had always pimped and pumped this blog.
Just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished.
Hey Baron, did you read Nathan Alexander's post?
That's pretty good, honest stuff. The problems in it are things that EBL here would promote more of.
Not sure what happened with Helen (or her husband) in all this. I guess I'm late to it, 2 cents and all notwithstanding.
Anyway, how big a deal is this topic/episode becoming in blogland? I thought it was just another topic to argue over.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a serious topic. But you never know what crazy prof takes seriously or not. It's like her ultimate weapon - capriciousness of priorities.
And I don't really care, either. I'm just curious - as my main interests are the topics themselves.
Well before Meade finsihes washing the pancake dishes and starts deleting...it is pretty obvious that the green eyed monster is at work here and the fanboys that Dr Helen has developed have really irritated the EBL. You see it was ok when they stayed over at Dr Smith's site but it was intolerable when they start quoting and praising her over here.
You see you are not supposed to have any other golden idols but one here at Mount Doom.
Just imagine Inga (who looks a lot like Edward G Robinson) wearing a tunic and sandals with black socks going:
"Waddaya think of your Moses Now!"
Got it.
Do you think he at least got a some of the cookery from the Amazon portal?
Kind of ridiculous that he'd go so far as to say the laws aren't tilted. Or bent.
Good thing that Helen disagrees, too. That's just one more virtue (of apparently many) that she has over da prof.
Cheers -
P.S. Remember how hilarious it was when da prof got all indignant about how Meadesy was polishing his working class creds by picking up dog poop? And then went on to defend the real Yoko Ono's pedigree? Maybe she was still confused by the references, at that point. Just wanted to remember a good laugh.
Being confused about references and jokes are par for the course around here buddy.
Not everyone has all synapses firing.
Lol. I like the auto reference.
Have a good one, man.
Post a Comment