July 6, 2013

"A somewhat dismissive response."

Instapundit says, somewhat dismissively. 

I suspect he wouldn't want to hear my truly dismissive response, but if you search the comments at my somewhat dismissive response... and over here... you can extrapolate what it would be. I'll cherry-pick some clues as to what I would say if I chose to go hard-core on this subject.

Quoting a commenter who said — about my proposal that health insurance pay for vasectomies and men freeze their sperm in order to provide males with reproductive autonomy — "Point of order, the woman has a right to seek an abortion. There's nothing about anyone having to provide it to her or having Other People pay for it," I said:
That's true, and that is something that makes the proposal in my post not neatly about equality.

But there really can never be equality about pregnancy and childbirth. It is the woman's special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity. I'm not trying to punish men by imposing a corresponding inequity, I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.

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.

I know people like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face. 
Quoting a commenter who said, "Your logic is correct for our pathetic society, but that doesn't rob from how pathetic it is," I said:
Yeah, but that's my point. My real prescription isn't [the vasectomy/frozen sperm proposal]. This is a fall-back now that we've become pathetic.

Really, men need to keep track of their genetic material. One way or another.

Don't be a splooge stooge.
Quoting a commenter who said "Women are just as responsible themselves..." I said:
I never said they weren't.

Both are fully responsible.
And, on the earlier post, quoting a commenter who said "Let's try applying your logic the other way. Women are free to freeze their eggs and then have their tubes tied. That way they have perfect choice not to get pregnant. So that does away with the case for abortion, right?" I said:
The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers.

The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.

I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.
Reacting to all the many, many comments from men who have taken Instapundit's invitation to victimology seriously, I said (punctuation corrected):
There are some really sad beta posturings in this thread.

Where is the self-respect?

Where is the awe over procreation?

Lame little men, whining about their meager money.

No one cares about you, because no one should!

Where is your aspiration? Where is your altruism?

Why do you leave the house?

You have your porn and your masturbation.

The alternative is true manhood, but is that something you are capable of? Apparently not!

I laugh in your scrunched up crying little face.
Another commenter said "You are also forgetting that even if a condom is used and the woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses a turkey baster to impregnate herself, the man is still held responsible. If a woman takes a used condom from a man having sex *with a different woman* and impregnates herself, the man is held responsible. If a man and woman only engage in oral sex and the woman saves the sperm for later use with a turkey baster, the man is held responsible. None of that means that the man has any actual *rights* in regards to the child." Which made me say:
I am absolutely not forgetting about that.

Men need to value and guard their genetic material.

The lameness of men who throw this stuff around is mindboggling. Don't be [a] splooge stooge.

Now, I think women shouldn't want to invest their reproductive effort in such idiots, but that's the other side of the story.
And (emphasis added):
The men who are saying: I want something because women have something.

You guys...

If you don't have the wherewithal to realize what you are... you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women, but at least, if they become pregnant, they take on an immense burden. They feel that.

You guys... I wonder if you feel anything at all.

You are unworthy. The reason something ought to save you from becoming fathers is that you are unworthy, but unfortunately, it seems that some women do still choose to have sex with you and even to bear your children.

And that -- THAT! -- is what you complain is your misfortune.

Amazing blindness. Your misfortune is so much worse than that.
And somebody said: "Then there are cases like the one (likely more than one...), where a woman who performed (only) oral sex with a man, using a condom, retrieved the condom and inseminated herself, and successfully sued for child support. IMO if a man does something that physiologically cannot produce conception without the woman's deliberate and willfully deceptive action, he is not responsible in any way for the conception." And I said:
I don't know why a woman would invest her reproductive effort in carrying forward the genes of such a man, but I have no sympathy with him at all.

Your phrase "physiologically cannot produce conception" is obviously wrong, since it did.

I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance.

The man is an idiot, and the woman is an idiot. Maybe the child can rise above it.

But sympathy for this man who has no love and no self-respect? Why don't you save your compassion for someone who deserves it?

This men's rights stuff was old-hat in the 1980s. Recycling it now is the lamest thing I've seen in a long, long time.

If you really cared about men, you'd try to do something to elevate them, as I am trying right now. Instead you are inviting them into a downward spiral. This is worse than The Life of Julia.
The whining and crying about what victims men are these days continued way into the night. In the morning I saw a comment that began with the burnt-out old internet expression "sigh": "Sigh. And yet a wife can make the choice to abort her kid without even telling her husband. Shoudnt they be consulting their husband?" I had to take another shot:
Yes, and that's exactly the reason Planned Parenthood v. Casey gave for striking down a statutory requirement that a woman consult her husband.

Think about it.

And stop your sighing.
Picture me singing that last line like this:



UPDATE: Glenn responds to this here, and I respond to that here.

361 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 361 of 361
Chip Ahoy said...

We've all become very mean. I too have a dismissive answer, but not to this.

I have closed mind. With gaps, but it is getting more closed as I go. Here is my dismissive answer, my dismissive response, to something else, because frankly I'm worn out on this: I'm watching my favorite show, Robert Irvine whip a place into shape, and it is looking really good, kids learning about gardening, some urban project having to do with food that needs help, there is a water damage situation being addressed and it looks so good I turn on the sound just in time for an i-Pad showing Michelle Obama saying,

"Robert, I need you to..."

*click*

There goes my favorite show, tainted.

It's not Michelle Obama, Persey, it is an unelected individual presuming the authoritah to say with a straight face, "I need you to do" anything at all. Full stop on the "I need you to," bullshit, he ain't your employee. And I resent the Food Network for bowing to this. I do not like it. I'm closed to that. Closed. And I would hate it if someone so demure as that Bush wife librarian whose name I don't recall this instant but it's not Barbara did it too.

Betty! No wait, abcdefghijkl Somehting with an L

Laura! Laura Bush, that's it. If she presumed something like that I'd have the same reaction.

Okay, I gave up. It really is interesting, I just have to erase the whole White House interference into my sanctuary. When they said there would be no avoiding their asses they meant exactly that, no refuge.

Anonymous said...

Baron Zemo: Listen you guys haven't cracked the code.

The Insta-wife has a successful book and the admiration of a bunch of fan boys. That burns the Nutty Perfessor's ass especially when her commenters push back against her feminist crapola.


Uh, no. However profoundly I disagree with Professor Althouse about so much of this, the notion that she would be envious of Dr. Smith is...well, totally gay emotional crap-flinging, Baron. Comical.

It was only a matter of time until the Nutty Perfessor turned on the Insta-nerd.

She has all the loyalty of a two dollar Bangkock sucky fucky GI Joe whore.


As I was saying. This is some stupid shit, BZ. Wtf, is Instapundit some Dear Leader who can't be disagreed with? Althouse ain't the cocksucker around here.

Anonymous said...

Freeman Hunt: "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?"

(Something I posted last night, deep in the depths of the 500+ comments.)


And well worth reposting, Freeman.

JHapp said...

Perhaps in the future technology will supply men with a virus they can pass with their sperm to abort at say 20 weeks, unless they supply an antidote known to them.

Anonymous said...

Dead Jim Morrison Robot says:

Of Course, in "The Crystal Ship" I wrote:

The crystal ship is being filled
A thousand girls, a thousand thrills

But the Big Guy Let me into Heaven, Anyway.

Saint Croix said...

I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm.

Yes, we must guard our precious bodily fluids!

Chip Ahoy said...

It's the phrase "I need you to." It set me off. Imagine the difficulty of retaining a civil visage when the thought being overcome is, "I need you to shut the fuck up. And that is the main and controlling thought that must be overcome before I can even begin to listen to what the little lady thinks she needs for me to do.

garage mahal said...

"What the shizzle, careful where ya drizzle".

I thought that was just common sense stuff. Shouldn't be controversial at all.

Rusty said...

Althouse said...
I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm.

Not too impressed with whinings of the women who are profligate with their vaginas, either.

Anonymous said...

Michael Hutchence Robot says:

"Wear a Belt Around Their Heads". That Would've Been a Better Idea.

rcommal said...

Freeman Hunt: You are rocking today.

Maddad said...

You say men should be careful with their genetic material, and I get it. Men shouldn't go around having sex with women they don't want to have children with, since no form of birth control is 100% effective.

Should men should carry some kind of liability insurance for accidental insemination during consensual sexual activity?

How about an end-user license agreement?

I'm thinking an iphone app or something? Enter your email here to agree and receive a digital confirmation and copy of the agreement. The sexual partner may come (ha ha) into contact with genetic material belonging to one party during, before or after the agreed upon sexual act (including any emission of material during foreplay or post action sleeping in the wet spot. However, this material remains the property of the issuer, and may not be saved, modified, shared, or used in any way.

edutcher said...

I see all the Lefty cheerleaders have come to the rescue.

Kchiker said...

If you think it is man-hating to tell men not to wallow in victimhood, you're pretty far gone.

This is becoming pretty hard to dodge on the right. It's a full embrace of victimization among the poor souls who suddenly find themselves without any group of lower social standing to demonize. Therefore the incessant whining.


No, victimization is your thing.

Listing grievances goes back to that document written by all those Dead White Men we Americans celebrated on Thursday.

No surpise you don't see the difference.

They are losing. And they know it.

Then why does Chuckie Scumer feel it necessary to import 35,000,000 slaves from Mexico?

Why does Choom feel it necessary to push back the employer mandate?

The longer this Depression lasts, the more people wake up.

Time, as an old English raconteur once observed, is on our side.

Yes it is.

Baron Zemo said...

AMNESTY FOR EDUTCHER!!!!

HE'S SUFFERED ENOUGH!!!

STOP BEING MEAN TO HIM!!!!


I can take care of myself, Herr Baron.

BTW, I'm not the one who left in a huff after Bloody Sunday only to come back under a Nom de Net.

PS That doesn't mean I don't owe you one for exposing the She Devil of the SS as Mitochondri-Allie, she of the 3, not 4, kids and the live hubbo.

Anonymous said...

Dead Jim Morrison Robot says:

That Dead Michael Hutchence is OK and All, But He Sure Keeps Hanging Around.

Carol said...

the issue of women deceiving men and trapping them into being wage slaves

LOL straight out of the War of the Sexes circa 1940. Plus ca change eh.

Anonymous said...

Edutcher, why do you consistently get EVERYTHING wrong? I'm beginning to think you are the biggest drama queen and attention seeker on this blog. Far worse than myself even.

I have four children, three grandchildren, can you please keep that straight, deary? It's gets so tedious correcting you, no wonder Ann jumps down your throat, I'm surprised she is so patient with you.

Meade said...

El Pollo Raylan said...
"Freeman Hunt wisely wrote: "

She is smarter and wiser than smart wise men and women twice her age.

Saint Croix said...

I had no idea General Ripper was such a defender of marriage!

"There will be only one course of action open...

...total commitment."

davis,br said...

So - and based only upon the reasoning inherent in your argument (i.e., that a man should be responsible for his sperm, even if the purpose of the sexual act was mutually agreed upon, hmm, let's call it "fun sex") - and reciprocity in law, if a women allows her egg to become "exposed" (i.e., during the mutually agreed upon "fun sex" sexual activity) and as a consequence fertilization occurs, she should be held equally responsible for the resultant creation of a newly formed human being (i.e., who, umm, should have, at least, some legal rights in the matter) ...and since the resultant human is the only truly innocent party to the irresponsible act by the consenting participants - your term - society and law should be, at least, protective of that innocent victim's rights?

That's your ultimate point then?

Hmm. Good argument.

Excellent reasoning.

I agree.

...and that differs from the historical ideal, exactly how?

Sheesh.

Buy a clue.

Baron Zemo said...

Once again Ed you missed the joke.

I was comparing you to a Mexican.

Nevermind.

rcommal said...

"What the shizzle, careful where ya drizzle".


That phrase, as a pithy phrase, made me laugh out loud. At 13, my son is too young to use that own due to the also crude nature of it, but when he gets older, I'm gonna share it with him and suggest that he repeats it to himself as a mantra.

The Crack Emcee said...

Freeman Hunt,

"Crack, I thought you'd be with Althouse on this one. I thought you advocated that people not be careless with sex."

Ha! There are times when we go over well-traveled subjects - like race - when I wonder if Ann remembers I'm here, because she talks like I'm not. She''l talk about black this and black that like I'm just an object, rather than the subject. It's crazy. That said:

You're right, I haven't put my sperm near a woman in 5 years. Haven't found one "worthy" as Ann says (I thought I was the unworthy one?) but Ann still called me a "beta" because she doesn't like me.

I will also remind you, when I first let it be known I'm celibate, Ann thought it was tragic, like I couldn't be whole without screwing a woman.

What's different is how Ann and I reached these conclusions:

I'm celibate for all the reasons the "losers" here have outlined - not Ann.

It is women like Ann and Inga who've turned me off to (most) women. They're liars, cowards, unreasonable, and incoherent. They inspire violence.
They leave no options but to be destroyed.

Freeman, DBQ, Synova - these are women any man would want, would love, would respect - and feel compelled to defend if necessary.

We used to think there was hope for Ann but,...

Anonymous said...

"They inspire violence.
They leave no options but to be destroyed."

7/6/13, 2:18 PM

---------------

I'm sure that Freeman and Synova would not advocate your position here Crack.

Saint Croix said...

"Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I don't avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence."

Saint Croix said...

Unless they fish it out of the toilet.

edutcher said...

Baron Zemo said...

Once again Ed you missed the joke.

I was comparing you to a Mexican.


It's OK. Everybody else did, too.

Lyssa said...

This whole "guard your sperm" thing is really the male equivalent of telling women not to get passed out drunk/walk alone in bad neighborhoods/go home or to hotel rooms with men that they don't want to have sex with/etc.

Yeah, it's horrible and not fair and we shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry about getting raped. But, hey, guess what? That's life. It doesn't excuse the bad actor to tell the potential victim to not be stupid about letting him or herself be a victim. You can only control you; be smart about it!

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm celibate for all the reasons the "losers" here have outlined - not Ann.

I thought those reasons were the same reasons. You won't settle; you won't throw yourself away on a woman you don't love.

Maybe you're both arguing the same thing, just from different directions. You are bringing up what you perceive as the paucity of good women in the world, and Althouse is bringing up the idea that more men should be like you in your refusal to think of sex as a mere recreational act.

Are you sure that the loser comments were directed at you? I thought they were directed at men who want consequence free sex with women they aren't committed to.

Anonymous said...

Once in the toilet, some of the fishies may have already swam away.

Freeman Hunt said...

Good point, Lyssa.

Phunctor said...

Could one tell the haplessly pregnant "You should have kept better track of your ova, you've now made a human being that has to live in your uterus for nine months!"? In the present discussion, this is a ridiculous proposal. The question is why should that be?

I don't see the justice in all choice accruing to the female post-conception.

"But its insiiiiide me!" has weight. "You want to KILL my child?" does too.

Saint Croix said...

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Saint Croix said...

And I don't like Commies fishing them out of the toilet, either.

Anonymous said...

FLUSH.

Saint Croix said...

Freeman Hunt would be a great B movie about an Amazon princess who stalks big game...man.

Saint Croix said...

Inga you're going to have me impregnating snakes and reptiles and baby alligators and all the other sewer creatures with my precious bodily fluids.

That's another great B movie!

chickelit said...

Are you sure that the loser comments were directed at you? I thought they were directed at men who want consequence free sex with women they aren't committed to.

#buttinski: I thought Althouse's "loser" epithet was launched in point #5 here and was directed at anyone who didn't glom onto SSM. It's also where this week-long hate fest sort of started.

The Crack Emcee said...

Inga,

"I'm sure that Freeman and Synova would not advocate your position here Crack."

No, but as Chris Rock said, they'd understand.

I've disagreed with all the good women here. But I don't actively dislike them for that. I don't find them generally unreasonable, as everyone here (just about) is saying you and Ann are. They can THINK and are looking for the same answers I am - not trying to shove through some bullshit just for themselves. They're not going to defend an unfair system like you two.

When I'm wrong, I'm happy to be told, so I won't be an idiot.

You and Ann (and Meade) not so much,...

bagoh20 said...

" I think Ann is saying one should be responsible with one's seed."

Again, a straw man. Everybody knows you should be careful, just as we don't leave our money laying about on park benches. Men aren't saying they should be able to fuck anybody they want and not worry about it. That's just Ann losing control of her inner bitch. The guys are saying that many fewer women are trustworthy now because the state encourages the dishonesty and supports it. Some here apparently find the victim of that to be a whiner, and the perpetrator, an average woman just being a woman. It's obvious that the real problem there is the perpetrator and the support system, that encourages her, but misandry is so much more fun. The girls can ignore the damage done by their gender, and the betas get a chance to stand close to the girls, at least in the daylight.

What other disastrous and clearly wrong public policy would you support just so you get to the thrill of goading and shaming the victims?

You have to need it pretty bad to dig that.

chickelit said...

(last comment was @freeman hunt)

Anonymous said...

Cross Species ( impreg) Nation.

Darleen said...

when the true alpha male will simply get as many women as possible

Only if he buys into "we are just part of the animal kingdom" nihilism.

The definition of being a man is using the holy part of his being to keep the destructive animal nature under control.

The same goes for females.

We are either men and women, or dogs & bitches rutting in the street.

Freeman Hunt said...

Are you sure that the loser comments were directed at you? I thought they were directed at men who want consequence free sex with women they aren't committed to.

I thought people were talking about the more recent comments on this subject.

As for that other subject, I think the tone was lost in the text for some.

chickelit said...

Well said, Darleen.

deborah said...

she steals like a thief, but she's always a woman to me.
She never gives up, and she never gives in, she just changes her mind.

Ohhhhhhhh...

Freeman Hunt said...

Oops, I quoted out the wrong part. That was for El Pollo Raylan.

Moneyrunner said...

Althouse is having a Bulworth episode.

chickelit said...

As for that other subject, I think the tone was lost in the text for some.

I maintain they are related, but you're correct in the tone of voice. That's why I translated Althouse's normally mellifluous voice of her point #5 into alt.houseman voice: link

bagoh20 said...

Ann, and Inga, and Freeman are all assuming the woman you love won't be the one doing this fraud, and the guys are saying yes she will, she does, and she gets paid for it rather than shamed for it, and then gets help calling the her victim names.

You could say men should pick better women, but that's our whole point. We want better women. We want better women encouraged, we want better women respected, we want better women to be supported, rather than their foul selfish sisters that the feminist establishment and legal system have been codling for decades now.

If you want the backbone of the society supported then support it. It was not the guys who tore it down - not the alphas anyway.

The Crack Emcee said...

Freeman Hunt,

I thought those reasons were the same reasons. You won't settle; you won't throw yourself away on a woman you don't love.

No - I don't have to love someone to sleep with them. But I do have to trust them, and there's no way I'd trust Ann or Inga to do anything but piss me off.

Maybe you're both arguing the same thing, just from different directions. You are bringing up what you perceive as the paucity of good women in the world, and Althouse is bringing up the idea that more men should be like you in your refusal to think of sex as a mere recreational act.

No - I'm saying destroy the framework they're defending - especially the legal part. You forget:

I "won" my divorce - even to my lawyer's surprise - because I wouldn't follow his advice, wouldn't keep my mouth shut, brought up everything I was told not to mention, and plowed into them like a Mack truck.

As my ex's lawyer nervously said, "I'm sorry, Your Honor, but we didn't think he'd fight this hard."

This is where men have every advantage - fighting for justice - but they have to remember they're men to do it. Ann's right:

Don't whine - beat her ass like bald-headed step-child.

Are you sure that the loser comments were directed at you?

Yep. Like I said, she forgets. I laughed when she called me a "beta" because she knows better - she's a desperate liar just "trying" to hurt.

I thought they were directed at men who want consequence free sex with women they aren't committed to.

Like Meade and his "first" wife?

I can buy that,...

Saint Croix said...

Toilet semen is the worst.

You know that baby's going to be a little slow. Or hard of hearing.

Toilet semen is even worse than frozen semen. And frozen semen, you know that's not right. Baby's gonna have two heads.

What's wrong with orgasms? Have you tried orgasms? Orgasms are fun, I swear.

I hope they don't mix up the frozen dog semen with the frozen people semen. That would be wrong. That would be unfortunate. Not that I'm trying to scare the hot lesbians or anything. Although a 3-way is definitely safer for all concerned. And more fun. I am pretty sure polygamy will be legal any day now. So let's start practicing!

This thread does not count as a hot lesbian thread, by the way.

n.n said...

The Crack Emcee:

Actually, I am serious. The inconsistent positions she holds on a variety of issues can be explained by the evolution of her personal life. From what I have learned, her past positions supported unproductive or dysfunctional behaviors. It was a rebellious stage for her, which was motivated by discrepancies in her life. Her present positions are sympathetic with her past, but not without reverberating conflict.

Anyway, it is not my impression that she is being deceitful, but she is clearly not offering full disclosure for a reason. Perhaps it is to toy with some people, especially certain classes of men, but it is also part of a reconciliation process that she has undertaken.

Maybe I am inferring too much about her disposition, but it is consistent with the diverse expressions she has made on this site, both as a hostess and commenter.

In any case, I welcome her invitation to discuss a diverse range of issues, even when they are popularly classified as "controversial". I welcome learning about individual perspectives and inferring their motivations. Some people are easier to characterize than others.

Anonymous said...

Let's take some common assumptions:
1. Women on average make (some significant percentage) less than men.
2. The sex of a custodial parent does not matter (one of the arguments in favor of SSM, as I recall).
3. Financial security is a very important part of a child's well-being. (An argument in support of Child Support.)

Based on these assumptions, the majority of child custody disputes should be decided in favor of the father, and fathers should be the majority of custodial parents. Mothers would have to pay some child support, of course.....

Why not? It's for the children!

Gahrie said...

Of course fraud should be dealt with.

Althouse doesn't. She thinks we should just man up and take it.

I think Ann is saying one should be responsible with one's seed. That some are finding this a shocking and oppressive statement is bizarre to me.

I have seen no one make or defend the proposition that men should be able to sleep around irresponsibly without consequences.

In fact, it is Althouse and her supporters who argue that women should be able to sleep around irresponsibly without consequences.

The Crack Emcee said...

n.n,

Actually, I am serious. The inconsistent positions she holds on a variety of issues can be explained by the evolution of her personal life.

I agree - it's her gay son, her artistic (rebellious) bent, feminism, Meade's (RINO) influence, all that - but she's a LAWYER. And a PROFESSOR.

We expect better,...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Feminists have created a society where men don't trust women. And with good reason. Men don't trust the justice system or the social systems in place to treat them fairly or with respect. With good reason.

Women have all the cards. Men and boys are treated like second class citizens. Men and boys are afraid to actually BE men or boys or be accused of sexual harassment for no reason or drugged into submission in school.

The justice system and family court are slanted against men. Your wife has a baby that isn't yours and divorces you....tough luck....pay anyway. Your wife is a drugged out slut and you try to get custody of your children so they can have a decent home and food to eat (true story of a friend of mine).....no way Jose.....pay the slut and don't get custody of the kids, until they turn of age and BEG the court to be released from their prison. Nevermind that the FATHER is the better parent, custody is always awarded to the mother because SHE has the vagina.

You can't have decades of negative reinforcement, negative stereotypes of men as either buffoons or as ravaging mindless rapists and decades unfair treatment without some negative consequences. As Dr. Helen Reynolds explains, men are checking out.

When the men, rightly point out some of these issues, they are called whiners, Beta men, loser and told to keep their "spooge" away from those women because the MEN are the ones who need to prove they are 'worthy'.

You know what. Maybe it is the women who need to prove their worth. Until then, I don't blame the guys from taking a pass on commitment or for the lack of respect that they hold for some women.

You earn the respect. Just because you are a woman doesn't automatically confer it.

Dante said...

@pm317:

If the woman lied, shame on her but if you didn't want it, you make sure you don't get it.

And I'm saying that is completely opposed to the biological imperative of males, and the social structure that once used to keep provide the remedy (marriage) is under severe assault. Not only in the US, throughout Europe.

The game has changed in a way that doesn't make sense. I post stats on this, but no one seems interested in that.

We all can whine about individual instances of unfairness, or be callous about the unfairness as Ann seems wont to do, but the end result is really bad. Not only for individuals, not only for kids, but the rules are tremendously damaging to society. Kids growing up without fathers, and the lore of fatherhood lost. Look how well THAT worked out in the black community.

And by the way, I'm completely sick and tired of Ann's warning us all about the value of women's uterus's "We don't need you men, we have sperm banks."

Ann, fine. Go find your own island, bring like minded women, and I'm quite certain some men will provide you and your ilk with sperm. You can even spin it to reduce the chance of having a male child, so you can avoid abortions.

I'm certain it will be a wonderful world. In fact, I wish some feminists had done just this, so all the reasons such a thing, while sounding good in theory, would never work out in practice become clear to all. But please, try.

Anonymous said...

"Don't whine - beat her ass like bald-headed step-child."

7/6/13, 2:47 PM

Oh yeah sure, I just bet Synova and Freeman will sign onto that sentiment, Crack.

TA said...

I'm bored.

The Crack Emcee said...

Inga,

"Don't whine - beat her ass like bald-headed step-child."

Oh yeah sure, I just bet Synova and Freeman will sign onto that sentiment, Crack.

That was a figurative statement (I was talking about my attack on the legal framework) but, as I said, I don't expect someone like you to understand nuance.

Which is also why you inspire the worst,...

deborah said...

Me, too. Let's make suggestions for an ebook for Althouse to write.

The Crack Emcee said...

deborah,

Let's make suggestions for an ebook for Althouse to write.

"Why You Should Cut Off Your Dick (And Think I'm Great For Suggesting It)"

Cover photo: Ann, with blood dripping from her mouth, offering a butcher knife.

Badger Pundit said...

Excellent thought-experiment, Ann. But it may not go far enough in sketching a gender-neutral approach to reproductive freedom.

Apparently ObamaCare will require, or might well be implemented to require, coverage of in vitro fertilization, currently required under many state-law mandates:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottatlas/2013/01/29/the-era-of-mandates-president-obamas-unfortunate-legacy.

This very expensive technology provides women with great flexibility over the timing of producing children. Is there an equivalent technology giving the same flexibility to men, which ought to be covered under a gender-neutral approach? Yes -- the sperm banking you mention, which provides the flexibility to produce healthy children in the future, by avoiding the risks posed by genetically damaged sperm in older fathers (with the added benefit of tending to reduce the cost of medical care for the offspring).

And the cost of sperm banking is high (though probably not as high as that of in vitro fertilization), so covering it with insurance would relieve a significant burden to reproductive freedom. Timothy Ferriss has crunched the numbers, and for one man to sperm bank enough sperm for three kids would cost a minimum of $3,850 up front, plus $300 to $600 a year storage -- easily $10,000 for a 15-year period:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/11/20/sperm-donor-and-sperm-bank.

Doesn't the brave new world of ObamaCare point the way toward nirvana? All men, when young, can bank their sperm with the cost picked up by insurance; they can then get vasectomies, ensuring neither they nor women with whom they are intimate will be burdened by unplanned pregnancies; and if, but only if, a man ends up deciding to be a baby daddy, he can unfreeze some of that ever-young sperm for the use of the baby mama. Of course, this system for reproduction would leave you and Instapundit with hardly anything to blog about.

bagoh20 said...

DBQ: "You earn the respect. Just because you are a woman doesn't automatically confer it."

Oh, you are so out of the club. Turn in your tits.

You are Branded.

The Crack Emcee said...

Meade would read that from cover-to-cover for tips on being a man.

chickelit said...

TA said...
I'm bored.

"The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity"

~ Dorothy Parker

Take some advice, please.

Anonymous said...

Who is arguing for men not to be responsible with their sperm? No one that I can see other than the PUA guys who are gaming Althouse and Inga.

What's at issue are the so-called "edge conditions" which Althouse dismises in her usual manner of setting the initial terms so she wins the argument before it starts.

But what I really don't get is how disagreement by some commenters, including women, justifies Althouse going into raving feminist-psycho-bitch-with-a-semen-fetish mode.

What's that about? How does that help anything?

Why should anyone take Althouse seriously on this subject, or any other for that matter?

deborah said...

Thanks, crack, but I mean a book that would channel her energy. She's talked of writing, and I think she should wing it. I think the message board thing is getting on her nerves.

dreams said...

"I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm."

We need keep in mind that a lot of these women have multiple sex pardners and often don't even know who the father is, they are sluts and I don't have much respect for sluts, especially on Mother's Day.

Anonymous said...

Crack, my take on your comments regarding violence toward women is based on many previous comments you have posted in this thread and other threads. Your threats have been literal, not at all figurative in the past, so now you want to wriggle out of your own comments.

Whatever, I guess I could do a search and find numerous comments of yours in which you advocate violence against women.

dreams said...

I don't think taking up for yourself is whining.

n.n said...

Dust Bunny Queen:

Men and women are endowed with equal intrinsic dignity. The material differences that arise are either earned or imparted. The principal and noteworthy difference is that women have a unique, but not exclusive (she shares it with the father, albeit indirectly), responsibility to care for the development of a human life from conception to birth and some time thereafter.

Women, particularly in Western civilizations, but also men, must realize that only a select minority are every able to enjoy fulfillment of dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification without consequences, and even then their pleasure is rarely in perpetuity. Their status as "middle class" does not confer the privileges enjoyed by the so-called "elite" class.

I think the problem is a departure from reason and moderation, which are shunned when priority is given to those dreams and other fantasies.

chickelit said...

Apparently ObamaCare will require, or might well be implemented to require, coverage of in vitro fertilization, currently required under many state-law mandates:

Can state-funded plastic surgeries to enhance reproductive chances for women be far behind?

dreams said...

Liberals, especially feminists are so effing full of themselves they are unable to see something from another's perspective.

Donna B. said...

Nella @McDonald's In Heaven said...
If a penis comes in contact with a vagina a pregnancy can result. -- 7/6/13, 11:02 AM

That's the truth boys and girls, even when birth control is used properly. Granted, birth control reduces the chance of pregnancy but it doesn't eliminate it.

AND... perhaps that's why Catholic doctrine insists that every sexual encounter between a male and female include the possibility of a child, thus it should take place only when both are committed to raising said child... like being married.

That is also what Althouse is insisting on... for males, at least. I'm not sure she is insisting that this awareness be extended to the female. But, she should be if she's truly a "feminist" shouldn't she?

And feminists should at least recognize that "the patriarchy" arose at least partly because that was the best way that men could control their sperm.

Now, I'm enough of a feminist that I don't want to go back to the way things were in the "good ole days" when women were needlessly controlled in all aspects of their lives.

But sexually, the revolution failed. Men and women are both generally worse off now.

The Crack Emcee said...

Inga,

Crack, my take on your comments regarding violence toward women is based on many previous comments you have posted in this thread and other threads.

In other words, you're not hearing what I'm saying but what you want to focus on - that inspires violence.

Your threats have been literal, not at all figurative in the past, so now you want to wriggle out of your own comments.

Threats? We're writing on a blog. Jesus, you're stupid.

Whatever, I guess I could do a search and find numerous comments of yours in which you advocate violence against women.

Yes, because where I come from women are equal - they can and will (physically) fight. If they lose, they lose. If they win, they earn the respect they've got coming. None of this "men are bigger than we are" bullshit because A) women can be bigger than men and B) it's just a self-justification for being manipulative which is more-than-enough for ANYONE to get their asses kicked.

You can't scream equality and think you're excused from it:

If a bad man can get his ass kicked (and deserve it) then so can you,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Inga,

You have noticed, generally, black women don't buy your bullshit. They love black men. White women are a joke.

Feminists anyway,..

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ n.n.

One of the issues is that the feminists have decided that relationships between men and women are a zero sum game. Someone has the power, in their minds the patriarchal man, and therefore someone, the woman, is powerless and oppressed. If one person has power, the other must be impoverished.

While that scenario may have had some validity in a few cases or cultural areas, the reality is that even in the height or depths of the Victorian Era women have had power. The power behind the throne. The iron fist in the velvet glove. A smart woman has more power than you think.

As you point out, only a very few elite people are able to 'live the dream'. The rest of us have to work and get by. The feminist dream is just an illusion

Men and women are meant to work together. They are a team. In a team some people do different tasks. The tasks that they are best suited to do either by genetics, biology or aptitude. There is nothing wrong with this. It is the natural way of life.

Feminists have decided to rail against nature. The result is the break up of the basic societal unit that has existed since we were picking up nuts and berries in our birthday suits in the forest. We destroy the underpinnings of society and ruin the dynamics between men and women and then wonder why the bitterness, the frustration, the anger and why our younger generations are such complete fuck ups.

You reap what you sow. And feminists have sown a harvest of poisonous grain.

dreams said...

"Feminists have decided to rail against nature. The result is the break up of the basic societal unit that has existed since we were picking up nuts and berries in our birthday suits in the forest. We destroy the underpinnings of society and ruin the dynamics between men and women and then wonder why the bitterness, the frustration, the anger and why our younger generations are such complete fuck ups.

You reap what you sow. And feminists have sown a harvest of poisonous grain."

I agree and its the poorest, the less able who have suffered the most because of the liberal feminists.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Its the poorest, the less able who have suffered the most because of the liberal feminists."

And the liberal feminists are fine with that.

The poorest and less able shouldn't whine either,...

William said...

So far as women going to the turkey baster route after oral sex, this is a problem mostly for NBA superstars. I have most known sexual neuroses, and that's something I've never worried about.

somefeller said...

I see we are now close to 300 comments even though it's a nice summer afternoon, with the chaff well identified and represented. Well played, Professor Althouse.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Chip never disappoints.

You cheered me up with that Syrian Assad ass hat comment, I think it was yesterday.

When they said there would be no avoiding their asses they meant exactly that, no refuge.

Coincidently, Althouse just posted something about an ass at a physical, real world café, she went to, today. At least, I think it was today.

bagoh20 said...

Somefeller, You aren't fooling anyone. We know what you are doing under her aprons there. Remember, if you brought in, take it home. It's the only way to be sure.

MayBee said...

Imagine Althouse speaking for herself the way Freeman speaks for her!

somefeller said...

Only if you let me borrow your mustache, bagoh20. It'll help close the deal.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

even though it's a nice summer afternoon,

It is over 100 degrees and the humidity is like a sauna. I finished cleaning the decks this morning and scrubbing them with a tsp solution. I'm making a rhubarb crisp and planning to read a book on kindle and sip on a nice glass of merlot....... while hubby naps after pulling and replacing a 1 1/2 hp water pump plus electrical components in a 180 foot well. I've not got anything better to do right now.

Help help!!! I'm being repressed by the patriarchy.

:-)

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Can state-funded plastic surgeries to enhance reproductive chances for women be far behind?

Hell, I'm halfway expecting them to start demanding that they should get make up free as part of their health care.

fivewheels said...

I cannot add to or improve upon bagoh's comments at 2:32 and 2:44. I rather doubt anyone else will either, even if the thread goes to 1,000.

deborah said...

DBQ,that sounds much more productive than posting a picture of a fat tattooed woman in order to elicit comments.

rcommal said...

Nice day here. My husband is back in the Midwest again, tending to the property we're trying to sell there. I am holding down the fort here. I only wish he was here to oppress my ass. Too much time apart this year, and it makes me sad. Not whining, just missing. I adore my man.

Jane the Actuary said...

It's exactly right that everyone -- men and women -- should treat every potential sexual encounter as if it could result in a child, and act accordingly. It's not fair (in terms of men and women having an equal balance of rights)that the law currently gives women an "out" with abortion, but that's just not going to change. It may be more fair to allow men to abandon their children if we allow women to kill said children, but it's not the right thing to do to allow men to act immorally just because the law allows women to.

It does feel wrong, though, that a teenage boy, too young to sign a binding contract, is still liable for child support (when, in a way, having sex is treated as if there's an implicit contract to support a child).

And when you think about it, there isn't really a bright line that separates the concept of sperm donation from one-night-stand. There was a case where the state was seeking child support from a man who was, effectively, a sperm donor for a lesbian pair, but they did so with a turkey baster rather than at a clinic. (I don't remember the outcome.) It never did feel like there was a good distinction. Back when artificial insemination first appeared, the recipient was always a married woman whose husband was legally presumed to be the father by virtue of being married to her, so the question of whether the sperm donor had properly complied with legal requirements in order not to legally be held the father wasn't relevant.

n.n said...

The Crack Emcee:

It would seem that we have reached a similar conclusion. However, I will resist fully characterizing all of the influences in her life, particularly her husband, Meade, because there is a discrepancy between her past and present life, which suggests a process of reconciliation with a clear bias.

As for expect better, that is an unreasonable expectation. Success in one aspect of life does not necessarily, and often does not, translate to other aspects of our life, especially when they are not within our direct control.

Anyway, life is complicated by its diversity, especially when it is unexpected or contrary to our presumptions, both real and perceived. Our ability to adapt is imperfect and is often a disruptive process. Perhaps this site is part of that process.

MayBee said...

We are all adults and we all know the difference between trying to have a discussion and trying to push people's buttons.

We all know how to antagonize others. That is no special skill.s

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

All men, when young, can bank their sperm with the cost picked up by insurance; they can then get vasectomies, ensuring neither they nor women with whom they are intimate will be burdened by unplanned pregnancies; and if, but only if, a man ends up deciding to be a baby daddy, he can unfreeze some of that ever-young sperm for the use of the baby mama.

Pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

I see we are now close to 300 comments even though it's a nice summer afternoon, with the chaff well identified and represented. Well played, Professor Althouse.

Yes, but you self-identify every time you come here.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I need to pick me up a copy of Theology of the Body for a nice cleansing read after these threads.

People, there is a much better way.


n.n said...

Dust Bunny Queen:

Men and women are unique and complementary, individually and as dual genders. There is no cause for extreme classifications of quality, kind, or purpose. That's where the feminists went wrong, almost immediately.

Feminism was and is a reactive movement. It did address real and perceived disparities; however, its main fault was to denigrate individual dignity, particularly of men. Its continuing failure is to not adapt to what it previously overlooked and to ignore the dynamic of human society. It, like other reactive movements (e.g. civil rights), failed to recharacterize its purpose, and long ago became a for-profit enterprise. Its corruption stems from a persistent violation of the principles it claims to respect.

Feminists are part of the problem. Fanatics in general are part of the problem. Each class is predisposed to set standards (i.e. normalization) based on exceptions and thereby defeat their purported claims to superior moral judgment.

Quaestor said...

edutcher wrote:
Note "Goldfinger", the first one released post-JFK, looks like an A-list movie.

Dr. No's secret underground headquarters set is pretty elaborate for a B picture, with all that gleaming sheet copper and the electronics that go bloop and ping. And don't forget Ursula Andress, that huggy little almost bare she-bear, she must've cost a pretty penny.

"From Russia with Love" does look a bit underwhelming in light of what a spectacle "Goldfinger" became, yet it's my favorite 007 flick (maybe because the plot is vaguely like a real intel op) with 'finger being my choice for second best. The rest of the franchise is pretty poor. I never like Roger Moore in the role, though I did find George Lazenby to be a better Bond than conventional wisdom allows. By the time Pierce Brosnan got his chance the 007 franchise had degenerated into absurd chases punctuated with absurd sex scenes, so his acting abilities or lack of same made no impact. Ditto Daniel Craig (who can really act if he's given a script which allows acting). After Connery the best Bond was Timothy Dalton, IMAO.

Guildofcannonballs said...

One way to get rid of the sperm problem is the Kennedy Way: Drown the cum slut along with the cum she wanted so much she had to die for it.

Guildofcannonballs said...

You know that dead little whore was a favorite topic of humor for Teddy I hope.

Me too.

Except the humor part.

cubanbob said...

Questar true about From Russia with love. It's Bond stealing a Soviet Enigma device ( a secret about WW2 that wasn't revealed until the 1970's). I suppose by them Fleming was too well know to get in trouble with the Official Secrets Act. Back in the mid-eighties I had an apartment in mid-Miami Beach and docked accross was the Disco Volante from Thunderball. Really cool boat.


Warren Fahy said...

So we just couldn't take a couple of WEEKS of looking at the issue from the men's perspective, could we? Time for pushback! Suck it up, men! Quit complaining! Put your schlong back in your zipper and stop splooging the world if you don't like child support payments from women who stick pins in your condoms and lie about birth control while dressing like porn stars. It's your splooge, after all, you rutting hyenas and degenerates. Like we aren't thoroughly used to and BORED by this endlessly self-centered morally irresponsible attitude from women that is the constant state of things now. Let's reintroduce it all like it's still interesting and original! Female culture has become as reprehensible in its disrespect for men as the Mad Men era we still criticize for misogyny. The way female culture denigrates the male sex drive as disgusting, the way it treats men as sperm and bank accounts and the rest of their identity be damned, the way it rejects any and all compassion for the plight current female attitudes trap men in unjustly and deceitfully would make the bastard father of Fantine in Les Miserables envious. The answer to this inability of WOMEN to rise to a level of humanity and recognize this rapacious and exploitive attitude toward men is morally repugnant is to adopt the culture that men have adopted toward women recently with their game theory of dating. Since women are nasty immoral life-wreckers who laugh at our scrunched faces while demanding we give a shit about their tears, and since we are sexually attracted to them nonetheless, resort to cold tactics of pure distrust at all times whenever dealing with the wretched creatures. Give up expecting of women any higher standard of humanity when it comes to men since women will certainly not be caught dead encouraging such an ethical standard in each other when it comes to how they treat (shudder) men! That’s for men to suck it up and rise to. After all, women don’t need any ethical standards, only men do. Who’s the misogynist, again?

bgates said...

Have you tried orgasms?

Hadn't heard of them. Can I learn about them somewhere on the internet?

jr565 said...

I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm.
our sperm wouldn't be there if you didn't let us put it there, or if you didn't use subterfuge to get it there.
Since women are the one's who get pregnant, isn't it really them who should be the most careful?
And yet, when they do get their presents they're all whiny about it. To the point where they kill their baby rather than deal with the responsibility.
And Althouse expects the man to be responsible. Just like a woman. To demand that the man be responsible for the both of them.

jr565 said...

Lyssa wrote:
This whole "guard your sperm" thing is really the male equivalent of telling women not to get passed out drunk/walk alone in bad neighborhoods/go home or to hotel rooms with men that they don't want to have sex with/etc.

Yeah, it's horrible and not fair and we shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry about getting raped. But, hey, guess what? That's life

Yeah, but if a woman got raped I doubt that Ann would call her a whiner for talking about violence against women.

jr565 said...

"This is becoming pretty hard to dodge on the right. It's a full embrace of victimization among the poor souls who suddenly find themselves without any group of lower social standing to demonize. Therefore the incessant whining. "
This is pretty standard lefty boilerplate rhetoric. Special interest groups have made the white man the villain of the world and WHINED incessantly about how they are oppressed by the white guy, either because of the patriarchy or because white men are just the worst.
And if a man or a white man complains about their plight, then suddenly they are whiners. Pot meet kettle. iF you are a feminist you've spent your life whining about your plight and your predicament. Don't suddenly think your shit doesn't stink when it comes to the whining. You shriek like banshees and like nails on a chalboard. Think of Fran Dresher times ten and that's close to the feminist whining we are exposed to just living in America.
And, of course, feminists demand an absolute right but don't acknowledge any inequities that arise because of that right. To even discuss the inequities is "whining".

Unknown said...


But is that true? Do you have experience of that, or even evidence? My personal experience, in Ohio, is that the courts also go with the men. Both parties are held to their respective responsibilities; assets, liabilities, property, and living standard are all equally divided. I refer you to the Ohio Revised Code.


Yep, it's true.

I have word from half a dozen lawyers:

I had custody of my kids in a Kramer vs Kramer situation. My ex- wanted them back.
The custody evaluator said they were better off with me. The eldest, 6 at the time, said he wanted to stay with us (the youngest was 4 at the time and didn't express an opinion).

The judge gave her physical custody except for summers and full legal custody.

She won't let me speak to them on the phone or by email when they are with her. She refuses to send me any of their grades or pictures or news.

She throws away anything we send to the kids, like personal letters, pictures, hand-made Chinese language study materials.

But every single one of a half dozen lawyers in 4 different states have told me: If I start another custody lawsuit, unless she is physically abusive or visibly on drugs during the hearing, the judge will probably still give her custody. Even if she is abusive or visibly on drugs, I don't have a 100% chance to get custody.

I'm an officer in the military with a Top Secret security clearance (and the squeaky clean record that typically goes with that...I'm squeakier clean than most).

The kids, now 13 and 11, want to live with me.

But the legal system favors the mother.


Other than that: is there a Violence Against Men Act?

What are the stats on the number of men punished under sexual harassment laws vs women? What are the standards for punishment for that? Jury of peers? Or the judgment of a Human Resources supervisor choosing who is telling the truth in a He Said/She Said scenario?

Are the penalties for false rape charges anything approaching that of rape?
Why does the presumption of innocence get overturned in the case of rape, date rape, and sexual harassment?

Is alimony to males given at the same rate as that to women? Why not?

Why is the punishment for women who kill their husbands usually lower than for men who kill their wives? Why is the punishment for women who kill their children usually lower than for men who kill their children?

What is the rate of women who get out of speeding tickets vs men?

jr565 said...


"Says a good little sheep.

Why won't the Daddy Judge help me not be a Daddy?

Society told me I should have sex just for fun and something serious happened, and I didn't mean for anything to happen but careless fun, so pleeeezzeee Daddy? Daaaadddeeeeee?!!!!"

why won't the Mommy judge help me not be a mommy. Whaaaah! I can't be a mommy because I don't have my dream job yet. Whaaaah! I got screwed by a cad I opened my legs to, but I don't want to be responsible. Whaaaaaaah! He should control his sperm even if I'm using a turkey baster to inseminate myself with his sperm that I picked up out of a garbage can. Whaaaaaah! Why can't I be a mommy and make him be a daddy! Support me. Whaaaaaah! I want the man to pay for my choice. Whaaaaah!
For a lady advocating the death of a million or so growing babies a year, I would think you'd be totally down with people not wanting to be parents and opting out. Only when men want to do it it doesn't involve killing them does it?

jr565 said...

A woman doesn't want to be a mommy, but I want to be a daddy. Tough shit. A woman wants to be a mommy but the dad doesn't want to be a dad. Tough shit again.
If a man wants to opt out, it doesn't prevent a woman from still being a mommy does it? Not so in reverse.
If she wants to have the sole choice, let her be a single mother. And if being a single mother is too tough, maybe she should have an abortion.

Meade said...

Come on, it isn't that difficult: If you are a man, never have procreative sex with a woman you're not sure you want to marry and raise children with. And never marry a anyone you wouldn't want to be divorced from. Follow those rules and you will stay out of trouble 99.9% of the time.

Revenant said...

It is the woman’s special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity.

Given that abortion is legal, opting to bear a child is a choice, not a burden.

If a woman wants to choose to have a child, that's fine. But the man shouldn't be obligated for anything beyond the cost of an abortion.

Revenant said...

Come on, it isn't that difficult: If you are a man, never have procreative sex with a woman you're not sure you want to marry and raise children with. And never marry a anyone you wouldn't want to be divorced from. Follow those rules and you will stay out of trouble 99.9% of the time.

Sure, but the overall fertility rate would fall well below replacement levels if that happened. When the survival of humanity depends on most people ignoring a rule, it isn't much of a rule. :)

John said...

Reading this debate it becomes clear why Ann didn't have a successful marriage until after child birth was no longer an issue. Ann is basically a sexist and kind of a bitch.

Ann and every other woman is free to feel that they have some kind of monopoly on reproductive rights. And men are free to act accordingly, meaning never marry a woman like Ann or have any use for her beyond a sex toy. If that means staying single, so be it. If you meet a woman who is not like Ann, do like I did and marry her and enjoy a happy life and be glad you never married a sexist who had no respect for you.

John said...

And to add to what Renevent said above. When you consider the poison put in so many young women's minds by the culture and well, people like Ann and those of her generation, a rule like mine basically means most young women will not find a husband and will never have a family. That just sounds so much better than re-examining the issue to make marriage more attractive to men.

Kirk Parker said...

DBQ,

"Feminists have decided to rail against nature. The result is the break up of the basic societal unit that has existed since we were picking up nuts and berries in our birthday suits in the forest."

This, and not the endless Freeman quotes, are what should be highlighted out of this thread. (Not meaning to diss you, FH, you're usually right on the money but this thread you're kind of missing it.)

Oh, and on 007, I have just one word: Thunderball. Forget the acting; forget the babes; forget everything else. How many other movies have a real live Vulcan bomber???

Guildofcannonballs said...

I sense very Catholic common-sense from our hosts.

But Catholic common-sense is limited as even Garage has pointed out with regards to sacred sperm.

And the law cannot use Catholic reasoning to benefit women and not society, which would include men, as a whole, which is what is being argued and rightly so.

Be careful with your sperm and who has access.

Use any means available within certain moral limitations to fight and hurt and inflict immense pain on systems which are inflicting immense pain unjustly and without a scintilla of remorse against anyone, men included.

Our family law system's continual causing more Balls to burst instead of doing what is constitutional and best for society as a whole has got to end sometime.

Gahrie said...

Follow those rules and you will stay out of trouble 99.9% of the time.

And then we will be forced to read endless articles written by women complaining that men aren't willing to step up and become good husbands.

Guildofcannonballs said...

This is a link about men with no comment. They killed themselves.

"According to research[15] approximately 330 people commit suicide monthly in the U.S. in response to the way family courts and CPS handle divorce, domestic violence and child support. The study points out that the suicide rate for divorced men is 9.94 times higher than the suicide rate for divorced women."

- - -


"(15) Augustine J. Kposowa, "Marital Status and suicide in National Longitudinal Mortality Study", Journal of Epideiology and Community Health, Vol. 54, April 2000, p. 256."


No link to the above Kposowa article on Wikipiedia; might be bullshit.

OffendedMan said...

From an earlier commenter: "So, boys, here's a good rule: If you don't trust the woman, and don't want to have a child with her, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER AT ALL."

No wonder gay is getting more popular.

Panachronic said...

It makes me sad to see Althouse unleashing her inner Amanda Marcotte.

OffendedMan said...

Here's a link to the Kposowa article on suicide relating to marital status:

"Research report: Marital status and suicide in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study"

Augustine J Kposowa, Department of Sociology, 1214 Watkins Hall, University of California, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.


http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/4/254.abstract


Here's the money quote from the abstract: " Marital status, especially divorce, has strong net effect on mortality from suicide, but only among men."


OffendedMan said...

I just have to comment that women often harp on "fairness" (when it's to their benefit.) One way to make the world "fairer" to men would be to legalize surrogate motherhood, that way men who wanted a family wouldn't have to go out and drum up interest from some gold-digging [insert epithet here].

Of course, women screech like tased howler monkeys when you talk about making surrogacy easier, because they might lose their womb monopoly then. (Why would women want to make things fairer for MEN? Silly boys! /sarc )

OffendedMan said...

"It makes me sad to see Althouse unleashing her inner Amanda Marcotte."

No kidding. Where did this come from? I always thought Althouse was relatively, er, reasonable. Loved her stuff during the Madison Moonbat Madness.

kmg said...

I like most of what Ann Althouse writes.

But I predict that she will get fewer Instalanches over time (without Instapundit, none of us would have ever heard of Ann Althouse). This is because Ann Althouse and Dr. Helen are on opposite sides of many issues regarding misandry and Men's Rights.

MikeMangum said...

From aronamos:

Argh, the comments here and at Dr. Helen or even from Instapundit himself seem to reflect a growing "womenz are teh evilz" attitude.

No, a legal regime that is unjust in application is evil. That is the whole point of law; to protect against unjust acts. It does not require believing most people are evil to believe that murder should be punished via the justice system.

Don't want to get a woman pregnant? Don't have sex with her. Don't have sex with anyone you don't trust fully. Goes for both sexes, but the man is always responsible for where he puts his junk.

And the woman isn't? True, both are morally responsible, but only one gender is held legally responsible.

So, boys, here's a good rule: If you don't trust the woman, and don't want to have a child with her, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER AT ALL.

"So, girls, here's a good rule: If you don't trust the man, and don't want to get pregnant and carry his baby to term, DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HIM AT ALL."

Clark said...

Very interesting discussion. I would like to believe, as some have suggested, that this was a purposeful academic exercise on the part of our host. Somehow, I doubt it. While I believe her inflammatory remarks were deliberate, I believe they were also sincere. I understand and can appreciate the thought that an inequitable natural state could require certain legal accommodations. I understand that from a legal perspective. But, life's a bitch, and then you die. Man up? Ok. You, too. It doesn't seem beyond the pale for those opposed to infanticide to expect those in favor of it to own their position in its gruesome totality.

Erich Schwarz said...

Glenn Reynolds replied to this much better than I could, so I'll just quote him to you:

"[That's] also, of course, advice one dare not give to women in today’s society without facing a huge backlash. When Rush Limbaugh suggested that Sandra Fluke should at least pay for her own birth control, he was savaged. But to suggest that a man should pay child support for 18 years because a woman lied about birth control is fine. You can’t say 'she should keep her legs closed,' but you can say, 'he should keep it in his pants.' That’s fine.

"Over the past several decades, women have asserted a right to make all the judgments in matters of gender and sexuality. And, in fact, we do 'facilitate' destructive choices, when they’re by women. We subsidize unwed mothers, we give women a pass on sexual behavior that would be considered predatory if it were done by males, we give them all sorts of 'choice' that men don’t have and then absolve them, culturally and legally, from judgment over the way they exercise those choices. No similar dispensation is given to men.

"A society that ran according to Ann Althouse’s views on marriage and commitment might, in fact, be a better one than the one we live in now, but it is most definitely not the one we live in now."

Marty said...

If the man has no rights concerning the pregnancy, then neither the woman nor the child should have any rights over him. Because there are decisions to be made and he has no rights.

You can wish for something else, but policies that defy basic justice and human nature have a funny way of producing unintended consequences, like responsible, intelligent, thinking men avoiding sex. That is the behavior you are encouraging.

Look at the recent Fed pronouncements on campus sexual abuse, you're actually encouraging no social relations at all. It's all the same, just a matter of degree.

And the idea of a man being held financially responsible for children who are not even his is such a monstrous miscarriage of justice that it is almost obscene that one has to point it out. But, same observation--it gives men who are intelligent and responsible and capable of planning a very good reason to not engage in sex. Because, aronamos' comment notwithstanding, you can never be sure you aren't making a misjudgment, and be left holding the bag.

And the more these inequities are institutionalized the more women will feel it their right to actually use thes epowers, and the more men will withdraw. This ain't rocket surgery.

So, women can fight over the losers while complaining to each other that there aren't any good men available, and not enough even not-so-good men in the market.

kmg said...

The sad truth is, that Internet comments have exposed something that people who created traditional customs already knew centuries ago.

Most women just don't see men as fully human. Not just lesser humans, but not even humans at all.

Rather, women see men in much the same way as the Japanese view whales - as a resource to be pillaged like there is no tomorrow, rather than as intelligent creatures who can feel pain.

Anonymous said...

Guys, the thing to do (aside from abstinence), if you don't want to get stuck paying child support to a woman you can't stand is: 1) ALWAYS use a condom. 2) NEVER use a condom she's had control of. It's easy to poke a pin through a condom wrapper without obvious damage to the wrapper. 3) ALWAYS personally dispose of the used condom in a manner that makes the contents irretrievable.

John said...

Althouse, you really are a buffoon. "The alternative is true manhood, but is that something you are capable of? Apparently not!". Do you actually not see the absurdity of your self-righteous, yet entirely un-self aware sense of entitlement here? Did you really just try to lecture a bunch of men about "true manhood"? Manhood is something that I guarantee you will never understand, and certainly could not hope to emulate on your very best, most self-sufficient day. You are such a shining definition of an over credentialed, over educated bag of mediocrity that it boggles the mind how you remain able to pontificate, in writing, so wrongly, so often, and yet still not notice the humiliating magnitude of your own shortcomings. You are a deeply, deeply stupid person. And because you're a woman, no one calls you on it. Think about it. If you can.

MikeMangum said...

From Nella:

If a penis comes in contact with a vagina a pregnancy can result. When a man releases genetic material a pregnancy can result. No matter what type of contraception is used. Even surgical contraceptive measures have failure rates. Unless the woman has had a hysterectomy or the man has been castrated, a pregnancy can happen.

How about when a man is on the hook for supporting a child that is the result of someone else's penis contacting a vagina? It is not as rare as some people seem to think. When a single mother applies for welfare benefits, a man must be named as the father. Any man. States don't care if they get the correct man. They simply need a name for purposes of getting Federal dollars. Grey Davis vetoed a bill (AB 2240) that would have allowed men incorrectly assigned paternity in default judgements an increased period of time to prove that they were not the father. His stated reason was that the state would lose too many Federal dollars.

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0210/ocr021003.htm

Instead of justice, Davis chose money.

Under federal guidelines, states must identify the fathers of children whose mothers are receiving benefits or risk losing federal incentive money. In addition, states receive federal funding on child-support orders. Because federal rules do not require DNA testing to prove paternity, states have no incentive to demand accuracy in establishing paternity.

In explaining his veto, Davis said that if AB 2240 became law the state might not meet federal requirements on collecting child-support payments, putting California at risk of losing $40 million in federal funds.

Opponents of the bill included NOW, the National Center for Youth Law and the San Diego-based Children's Advocacy Institute. An institute official praised the veto, saying "we're glad that the governor put children first."


State bureaucracies actively try to prevent an incorrectly named man from challenging paternity within the 30 day legal limit, and once those 30 days are up (with no requirement that the man actually every be informed) he is now the father, with all of the financial responsibilities but none of the rights. No evidence presented can alter that legal finding of fact.

Absolutely unjust. But I guess pointing that out is "whining".

Charlie Martin said...

Oh good, let's you and he fight.

kmg said...

One thing that feminism has exposed is the fact that women don't actually care about children, even their own.

One out of three conceptions is aborted, and in big cities like New York, it is more than half.

But worse than that, are these 'child support' laws, which are just another form of alimony, as the woman does not have to prove she spent the money on the child.

These laws enable women to use children as conduits to funnel money to themselves, while falsely claiming that it is 'for the children'...

Frankly, a woman who cannot manage to keep the biological father of a child under the same roof as the child, is pathetic.

Q said...

And how about all the objects doctors have to pull out of the asses of guys who just happened to fall on that thing?


Now Ann's a homophobe? Enough about Christopher and his friends!

Q said...

And how about all the objects doctors have to pull out of the asses of guys who just happened to fall on that thing?


Now Ann's a homophobe? Enough about Christopher and his friends!

Ken said...

It is the woman's special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity.

This is so laughably false that it's simply more proof of the dysfunction of the law profession. It's people like you that have caused such (correct), scorn towards lawyers. Instead of considering ALL facts you chery pick and quite literally live in a fantasy world. That you teach law at an institution that is considered prestigious is the proof that the entire profession cannot be taken seriously.

Your train of thought is simply the end result of a system purposefully designed to be oppositional and to actively dismiss or simply ignore all evidence not "on your side", rather than consider all evidence and apply critical thinking. The fish rots from the head and you are the resulting corruption.

Anonymous said...

I know women like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face.

There fixed it for you.

Just an FYI, you'd probably be a better lawyer and teacher if you learned critical thinking skills.

Mark Trade said...

"If you don't have the wherewithal to realize what you are... you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women, but at least, if they become pregnant, they take on an immense burden. They feel that. "

What a crock of shit. Their burden is shouldered by the state. Any burden that's left is, what, something I'm still supposed to feel sorry for? It was her decision. What a pile of horse shit.

rcommal said...

I'm waiting, with bated breath, for the moment that DBQ agrees that she has a fundamental problem with Freeman's core approach to life. My bet is that this will never happen. Never. And for excellent reason.

In reverse, too, of course--and also for excellent reason.

If one could tag comments, I would tag, in part, this comment of mine as:

full-stop; stuff I know; WTF?

Don M said...

Married man has vasectomy, his wife gets pregnant by another man, and the husband is responsible for child support. Married woman gets tubes tied, husband gets another woman pregnant, husband has to pay child support.

Without splooge, man is still responsible even if he is not responsible at all.

Don M said...

Cicero had it right. His advice to his son was to marry, then divorce before his wife could betray him, to take his pleasures with concubines as necessary, and when he was ready to pass on his estate to adopt a likely young man, for then at least you knew what you were getting.

Kevin said...

I think that in cases where a woman is unwilling or unable to identify the father of her child, an adult male be chosen at random, deemed to be the father, ad required to pay child support for eighteen years.

After all, it's in the best interest of the child to have a male paying child support. Who cares if he had anything to do with the conception?

MikeMangum said...

This whole "guard your sperm" thing is really the male equivalent of telling women not to get passed out drunk/walk alone in bad neighborhoods/go home or to hotel rooms with men that they don't want to have sex with/etc.

Yeah, it's horrible and not fair and we shouldn't have to live in a world where we have to worry about getting raped. But, hey, guess what? That's life. It doesn't excuse the bad actor to tell the potential victim to not be stupid about letting him or herself be a victim. You can only control you; be smart about it!


No, it is the equivalent of telling a woman who is raped that her assailant will not be prosecuted because she shouldn't have [gotten] passed out drunk/walk alone in bad neighborhoods/go home or to hotel rooms with men that they don't want to have sex with/etc.

Bad things happen. We theoretically have a legal system right those wrongs. It should not be agent of injustice.

I'm curious. Putting aside what may be prudent advice, and without descending into referring to the man as pathetic, is it just that a woman purposefully inseminates herself from a used condom and the man is held liable for 18-22 years of child support payments by the legal system?

Foobarista said...

Here's a thought experiment: let's say that we develop the technology to "impregnate" an embryo with DNA from _any_ cell. We're actually not that far from this point now.

And let's say a woman shakes Bill Gates' hand (or gets his water glass, whatever), takes it to her BFF at the lab, gets the egg fertilized, carries it to term, and says she has his love-child and he owes her billions - and has the DNA tests to prove it.

Now what?

James Jones said...

@pm317: "What is wrong with what [Althouse] is saying here?"

What would you say about such advice being given to blacks in the 1950s and 1960s?

Mark Trade said...

Since choice naturally comes with responsibility, a woman's choice should mean a woman's responsibility.

A woman who chooses to have a child she cannot support is guilty of criminal recklessness and should be convicted as a felon, with her right to vote removed, and jailed. It is the first and worst form of child abuse. At best she is guilty of negligence and under no circumstances should have custody of *any* child, including any children she may already be supporting.

How's that for a recommendation?

Professor Apocolypse said...

It seems to my masculine eyes that once again the problem here is women...

By that I mean the fundamental inequality of men and women when it comes to reproduction. (one pitches, while the other catches and carries. Must I really explain more?)

So I propose this 5 point plan.

Step 1. We flip a quarter to decide which system we will temporarily adopt. (Heads - Absolute Patriarchy Tails - Absolute Matriarchy) ((No best 2 out of 3 either, the first toss is all we get))

Step 2. All Government Science funding goes toward creating an "Exo-womb" which can be used to incubate a human fetus.

Step 3. Devise some safe and cheap method for removing a freshly conceived fetus from a woman. (preferably one that can be done by at worst a nurse, at best by a high school dropout)

Step 4. Impose draconian restrictions on pregnant women (after all they are the cause of this problem. right?)

Step 5. With the link between women and child birth broken we can all go on too lead happier, freer, and more ethically dubious lives.


In my honest opinion this issue (abortion and the larger debate about reproductive rights) pokes many holes in the argument that men and women are equal. I fall on the side that men and women are NOT equal, this seems obvious too me and I'm confused why people get all in a tizzy when I say it. I believe in the ideal that, all people should be treated equally before the law but I also believe the idea we're all born equal is a fallacy at least until gender (among other things) becomes a choice the ideal of treating everyone equally before the law is only something we can endlessly strive for but never obtain.

Rusty said...

Crack said,

"- but she's a LAWYER. And a PROFESSOR.

We expect better,..."



Nah. The law, is at best, a mediocre trade. Our hostess lures us over with raisins and sweet meats and then bars the door and watches the shit fly. We , her humble correspondents, are her entertainment. I don't think the law enters into it much.

SDN said...

"You do realize that people trade the hours of their lives for money, right? When a leftist says something like this, dismissing our property rights over our own money as petty greed, they forget that time is money, and our time on this earth finite, and you might as well say that human lives are disposable."

Pastafarian, it should all become quite clear when you remember that Althouse (and her husband) are in favor of slavery. That's why they're Democrats.

Slavery is not a racial condition; it's an economic system sustained by the slaver's desire do dominate others.

The only answer, historically, is armed rebellion followed by massacre of the slavers. No matter how much they whine and plead that slavery wasn't their intention, it's the results that will be counted.

Perro said...

I'm disappointed in Ann. Not because of her opinion. But because she's resorted to that old feminist shaming trick. Men who argue for what they see as their gender rights are not "real men", they need to "man up" and quit being whiney losers who no woman would want to be with. It's a familiar trick used to shut men up and I thought Ann was better than that. She should be able to make her argument without resorting to such tactics.

Brian Macker said...

Ann,

So, to be consistent, you believe that if I own an old baseball bat that can be traced back to me, and I dispose of it in the garbage, and you then retrieve it and beat a child to death with it then I should be held responsible for your actions? Why? Is it because we can't expect women to act rationally and somehow our sperm is an attractive nuisance? What's your reasoning here?

Here's what lead me to the above deduction from your position.

Another commenter said "You are also forgetting that even if a condom is used and the woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses a turkey baster to impregnate herself, the man is still held responsible. If a woman takes a used condom from a man having sex *with a different woman* and impregnates herself, the man is held responsible. If a man and woman only engage in oral sex and the woman saves the sperm for later use with a turkey baster, the man is held responsible. None of that means that the man has any actual *rights* in regards to the child." This leads you to write the following:

You, Ann: "I am absolutely not forgetting about that."

Good we have established we are talking about items discarded in the garbage, and the responsible use of a condom.

You, Ann: "Men need to value and guard their genetic material."

Huh, I'm supposed to value all the semen I produce on a weekly basis? What am I supposed to do, store it in a freezer under armed guard? Oh, wait, that's exactly what you proposed. Do you realize how silly you sound just about now? How come the garbage isn't an appropriate solution?


You, Ann: "The lameness of men who throw this stuff around is mindboggling. Don't be [a] splooge stooge." - Ann

Disposing of something in the garbage is "throwing it around". I guess by putting that old baseball bat in the garbage in your mind I was literally throwing it at the child you beat to death.

You, Ann: "Now, I think women shouldn't want to invest their reproductive effort in such idiots, but that's the other side of the story."

I'm the idiot for using a condom during sex and disposing of it in the garbage? Someone who does this is a "splooge stooge". Do you realize how wacky you sound with five seconds of thought?

You, Ann: "The men who are saying: I want something because women have something. You guys... If you don't have the wherewithal to realize what you are... you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women, but at least, if they become pregnant, they take on an immense burden. They feel that. "

I'm not a man and should be rejected by women for using a condom, and discarding it in the garbage, just because some homeless woman fished it out of the trash and used it to impregnate herself?

You, Ann:"You guys... I wonder if you feel anything at all."

We do feel something. We feel outraged at the double standard, the willful rationalizing of what ought to be criminal behavior, the irrationality of condemning someone for responsible behavior.

You, Ann:"You are unworthy."
That's an ad hominem, and you have so far shown no evidence you have the ability to make such judgments. Your reasoning is pitiful.

Brian Macker said...

Ann,

So, to be consistent, you believe that if I own an old baseball bat that can be traced back to me, and I dispose of it in the garbage, and you then retrieve it and beat a child to death with it then I should be held responsible for your actions? Why? Is it because we can't expect women to act rationally and somehow our sperm is an attractive nuisance? What's your reasoning here?

Here's what lead me to the above deduction from your position.

Another commenter said "You are also forgetting that even if a condom is used and the woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses a turkey baster to impregnate herself, the man is still held responsible. If a woman takes a used condom from a man having sex *with a different woman* and impregnates herself, the man is held responsible. If a man and woman only engage in oral sex and the woman saves the sperm for later use with a turkey baster, the man is held responsible. None of that means that the man has any actual *rights* in regards to the child." This leads you to write the following:

You, Ann: "I am absolutely not forgetting about that."

Good we have established we are talking about items discarded in the garbage, and the responsible use of a condom.

You, Ann: "Men need to value and guard their genetic material."

Huh, I'm supposed to value all the semen I produce on a weekly basis? What am I supposed to do, store it in a freezer under armed guard? Oh, wait, that's exactly what you proposed. Do you realize how silly you sound just about now? How come the garbage isn't an appropriate solution?


You, Ann: "The lameness of men who throw this stuff around is mindboggling. Don't be [a] splooge stooge." - Ann

Disposing of something in the garbage is "throwing it around". I guess by putting that old baseball bat in the garbage in your mind I was literally throwing it at the child you beat to death.

You, Ann: "Now, I think women shouldn't want to invest their reproductive effort in such idiots, but that's the other side of the story."

I'm the idiot for using a condom during sex and disposing of it in the garbage? Someone who does this is a "splooge stooge". Do you realize how wacky you sound with five seconds of thought?

You, Ann: "The men who are saying: I want something because women have something. You guys... If you don't have the wherewithal to realize what you are... you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women, but at least, if they become pregnant, they take on an immense burden. They feel that. "

I'm not a man and should be rejected by women for using a condom, and discarding it in the garbage, just because some homeless woman fished it out of the trash and used it to impregnate herself?

You, Ann:"You guys... I wonder if you feel anything at all."

We do feel something. We feel outraged at the double standard, the willful rationalizing of what ought to be criminal behavior, the irrationality of condemning someone for responsible behavior.

You, Ann:"You are unworthy."
That's an ad hominem, and you have so far shown no evidence you have the ability to make such judgments. Your reasoning is pitiful.

Brian Macker said...

... continued:

You, Ann:"The reason something ought to save you from becoming fathers is that you are unworthy, but unfortunately, it seems that some women do still choose to have sex with you and even to bear your children."

No, I think the fact that a man was having oral sex wearing a condom and threw it in the garbage (and she knew that) is what should be sufficient to save them from becoming a father. We aren't talking about an accident here, nor irresponsibility on his part. There was a choice to have sex for pleasure, not procreation, are you against that? Does Bill Gates have to refrain from having sex for pleasure with his wife using a condom just because Ann Althouse might decide to fish his condom out of the garbage to impregnate herself? Does he need armed guards by the waste bin?


You, Ann: "And that -- THAT! -- is what you complain is your misfortune."

So do you think that female rape victims should be grateful that some men still choose to have sex with them and bear them children?

How would you feel if a homeless guy fetched a used condom out of the garbage, and sneaked up on you while you fell asleep sunbathing, pulled aside you bikini, and dribbled some semen on you getting you pregnant. Would you accept as a response to refusing you an abortion?
"The reason something ought to save you from becoming a mother is that you are unworthy, but unfortunately, it seems that some men do still choose to have sex with you and even to fertilize your children."


You, Ann:"Amazing blindness. Your misfortune is so much worse than that."

Yeah, I'm the one who's blind.

Brian Macker said...

Ann,

And somebody said: "Then there are cases like the one (likely more than one...), where a woman who performed (only) oral sex with a man, using a condom, retrieved the condom and inseminated herself, and successfully sued for child support. IMO if a man does something that physiologically cannot produce conception without the woman's deliberate and willfully deceptive action, he is not responsible in any way for the conception."

You responded (according to you):

"I don't know why a woman would invest her reproductive effort in carrying forward the genes of such a man, but I have no sympathy with him at all."

Why? He's obviously better than a woman who would steal a used condom out of the garbage to inseminate herself. She'd be selecting someone to procreate with who is her superior. The guy used every precaution not to result in a pregnancy and you think that is evidence of his unworthiness? I say he is obviously a responsible keeper, holds down a steady job, is attractive, and she knows it. She chose to sleep with him, right? You think she picked an ugly homeless guy? What evidence for that absurd assumption?

"Your phrase "physiologically cannot produce conception" is obviously wrong, since it did."

That is an illogical equivocation on the meaning of what he was saying. The baseball bat place in the garbage physiologically cannot produce bruises on a child all by itself. It is an inanimate object at that point. Nor can a used condom produce conception lying in the garbage. That does not meant that it cannot be a prior object used in a causal chain initiate by a woman. She is 100% responsible for the pregnancy that results from yanking a condom out of the garbage, the same way shed be responsible for pulling the baseball bat out.

"I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance."

So get yourself sterlized, and if you have children then advise them to do the same. You think this is being "somewhat dismissive", telling anyone who disagrees with your insanity and idiot unworthy of procreation?

"The man is an idiot, and the woman is an idiot. Maybe the child can rise above it."

The woman is not only an idiot, but an evil idiot who is enabled by people like you who sanction their crimes. The man was a responsible individual using oral sex, a condom, and the disposal of the condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (and STDs) in recreational sex. Are you against recreational sex? Are you the Pope or something?

"But sympathy for this man who has no love and no self-respect?"

WTF, are you talking about? What leads you to conclude he had no love or self-respect? Love for whom, the woman who physically forced him into fatherhood?"

"Why don't you save your compassion for someone who deserves it?"

I have an infinite amount of compassion for those who are criminally trespassed against.

"This men's rights stuff was old-hat in the 1980s. Recycling it now is the lamest thing I've seen in a long, long time."

Yeah, so was the anti-slavery movement. I guess I shouldn't expect you to be expressing any outrage at and cases of slavery or sex-slavery in this country.

You are only digging yourself deeper. Did you drunk-blog this?

"If you really cared about men, you'd try to do something to elevate them, as I am trying right now. Instead you are inviting them into a downward spiral. This is worse than The Life of Julia."

Yeah, that's what you are doing, elevating men. How on earth is responsible-oral-sex-with-a-condom-properly-disposed-of in any way "inviting them to a downward spiral". How is protecting men from female predators who fetch condoms out of the garbage causing men harm? How is assuming that a man behaving responsibly is a loser, unworthy, loveless, idiotic, whiners, etc. in any way elevating-men.

You think men are blind?

J. E. Burke said...

This is why every settled human society, including ours, up until about 60 or so years ago, with both social standards and religious (across all faiths) doctrines doing the boosting, expected sex and marriage to go together. Premarital sex might be winked at in couples already engaged, and more than a few pregnant brides might make their vows, but by and large, it worked pretty well -- for thousands of years.

J. E. Burke said...

This is why every settled human society, including ours, up until about 60 or so years ago, with both social standards and religious (across all faiths) doctrines doing the boosting, expected sex and marriage to go together. Premarital sex might be winked at in couples already engaged, and more than a few pregnant brides might make their vows, but by and large, it worked pretty well -- for thousands of years.

Griff said...

Pretty simple. If women have 100% of the choice (by law), then they should have 100% of the responsibility. Anything else is not Equal Protection Under the Law.

When feminists are talking about equality, they are usually saying "Do it my way."

Beaver7216 said...

3 Althouse Quotes:
“But there really can never be equality about pregnancy and childbirth. It is the woman's special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity. I'm not trying to punish men by imposing a corresponding inequity, I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.”
“Really, men need to keep track of their genetic material. One way or another.”
“I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.”
OK. How about comparing sperm to eggs and wondering if women also need to keep track of their genetic material?
The definition of childbearing in Merriam Webster’s is:
“: of or relating to the process of conceiving, being pregnant with, and giving birth to children ”.
That definition seems to imply that the body that we are concerned with post conception is the child’s, not the mother. The mother, like the father, liked to have her fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks but HER body is HERS and the child’s body is the child’s. The father, like the mother, made the same decision at conception. Only the mother gets a redo. Rewrite that sentence with fetus instead of child if that helps but the result seems to be the same. The fetus is not the mother’s body, just in her body.
I'm not trying to punish women by imposing a corresponding inequity, I'm just not impressed by the whinings of females who were profligate with their eggs. They are not the backbone of society.”

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 361 of 361   Newer› Newest»