Instapundit weighs in on that lying-about-birth-control question we were talking about — a lot — yesterday.
He's mostly focused on sympathy for males who must pay child support, but I think society has chosen to put the burden on men to control where they put their sperm. Imagine endless factual disputes over whether the woman claimed to be infertile or on pills. The child is real and needs support, and anyone who expressed horror — as Instapundit did — at "The Life of Julia" should understand why we hold men responsible for the consequences they risk.
To save commenters the trouble of telling me again: I know, there was an underage boy one time who was the victim of statutory rape and made to pay child support. So craft a narrow exception for people like him. The general principle is a good one.
If you're thinking of bringing up the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy, let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman. Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse.
Now, here's a proposal, based on all the attention Obamacare has given to women's health. Let's require health insurance to cover vasectomies. Then there will be some surgery that men have a right to choose. How's that for a pro-equality policy? Men can freeze their sperm beforehand and thereafter have perfect control over when women get hold of their reproductive powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
577 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 577 Newer› Newest»The problem with this whole thing is it doesn't take into account the differences between men and women at the biological level. My kid is 19, and is trying to have sex with every acceptable woman that walks.
I'm trying to put the fear of Hep C and HIV into him to get him to use a condom all the time. But let's be clear about this. HIV spread through unsafe sex practices in the Gay community. Even though they had much higher chances of contracting HIV, they continued to do it, and I think there isn't much difference in the drive of gay men or of heterosexual men. It's incredibly strong (look at the animal kingdom in which animals will have life threatening fights for reproductive access).
It's simply not reasonable to expect a young man in the heat of the moment to make neo-cortex types of decisions.
That's what's wrong with the new approach here. If you go back to the old solutions, you impregnate her, she is your wife, and perhaps more importantly that women should not get married out of wedlock, and have significant biological reasons to limit sex with men, you will see how unfair it is.
That's what has men upset. It's hard enough to get a lady into the sack.
I similarly can not imagine convincing my 19 year old to go to a sperm bank, have them hold his sperm, and get a vasectomy. Oh, it's a great idea in the abstract, but I know very few guys that can get over the idea of a knife near their balls. And if that sperm were ever to deteriorate, there is no amount of money that can compensate for not being able to pass on your genes and have a family.
Meanwhile, the state is pushing all kinds of law, welfare, etc., that allows a woman to discount her essential biological urges. Certainly it has caused some women to take the action of "I want a baby, and I'm going to have one." One need only look at the out-of-wedlock numbers to know this. The state has taken over the role of provider (or rather, those people who live responsible lives, since it is their labor).
I find this solution unnatural.
It's bad policy. And while, Ann, you may think it's all fair according to some definition of "Fair" you have, I don't find it fair at all.
It's not fair to the taxpayers. And it's not fair to the guy who ends up getting the girl pregnant, either because he was driven by the incredible desire to have sex in men, or because he was lied to.
It stinks. We need to go back to strengthening marriage laws. Yes, Ronald Reagan pushed no fault divorce, but I think that was foolish, too.
So here is what I have to say. Yes, perhaps some of this makes sense in the abstract, but practically the system has failed, and a new approach (perhaps the old approach that, you know, worked) ought to be brought back.
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
Isn't that what the "Life of Julia" was all about? That our society does in fact do this?
In other words, it has to be unfair to someone - should that someone be the dad, the kid, or the public coffers?
Take away the automatic assumption from a woman that she is going to have committed sources to raise her child, and this problem will go away.
It's a biological imperative for a woman to have committed resources. Right now, it's responsible taxpayers, and the borrowing from other countries. Remove that, and voila! The kinds of people being born will be better, and the guys will be more responsible too, as that will become a dominate factor in female choices of sex partners.
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.
Didn't society just facility those that do other things when SCOTUS found DOMA unconstitutional?
If you go back to the old solutions, you impregnate her, she is your wife, and perhaps more importantly that women should not get married out of wedlock, and have significant biological reasons to limit sex with men, you will see how unfair it is.
I agree. Nobody should get married out of wedlock.
Wait...what?
Maybe he meant get wed out of preglock.
lol, facility should be facilitate :)
Well, there's where I disagree. Fraudulently obtaining consent for paternity leaves the burden of supporting the object of said paternity on the party perpetuating the fraud.
That paternity is the result of your genetic material (sperm) being knowingly placed by you in a place where female genetic material (egg) is known by you to sometimes be present. The result of paternity is a person who is unable to care for/support themselves for 18 years. That responsibility belongs unconditionally to both the supplier of the sperm and the egg.
Consensual sex is healthy and fun. It also carries a responsibility on the part of both partners to deal responsibly with the reproductive consequences. That includes the father of the child being fully responsible for financial and other obligations.
Sometimes when I pinch a loaf I feel like I am giving birth to a baby.
"Get the Congressional Budget Office to put a price tag on all that. 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."
But the woman's decision over her body controls the baby who's Inside of her, not to mention the mans future. and what were you saying about not seeking control of women? Forcing men to pay for a woman's choice is control over a man. And not just for 9 months, but for 18 years.
Why can't the family planning be a mutual thing? The woman decides to kill her kid because she doesn't want to impact her future, or decides to keep her kid. At the same time the guy decides that he wants to be a dad (and is denied this choice because the woman decides) or decides that if she does keep it he doesn't want to be a dad. Its her choice, it becomes her problem. On the exact same premise that a woman would abort a kid.
And the mans choice should factor into the woman's choice to keep or abort her kid.
I personally would never choose to not assume responsibility, but then again if my gf had an abortion, especially without consulting me, she wouldn't be my gf anymore. But why should dead beat dads feel bad about not wanting to pay for kids that they didn't want but are here because the woman chose to keep it.
You talk about men's responsibility. Let women be responsible for their choice.
Althouse: "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."
A Right to Abortion is precisely an expectation that they will be saved from the consequences of their actions.
The current manner of assigning paternity, with its eye of the financial maintenance of the mother and child, is a further exemplar of the same.
Under current law abortion is a Right. And her Right alone. Within that legal framework, your argument here is only as valid as your distaste for child support. If it is her right, then the existence, or lack thereof, of a child is solely on her shoulders. How she chooses to exercise her individual and inalienable Right is no one's fault but her own.
And so we know that you disagree with Paternal Rights and Child Support both. Or we know that you haven't bothered to think seriously about the subject.
So you're saying that rewarding deceit is a good way to encourage responsibility, tarheel. Got it.
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.
marriage is the backbone of society that channels and grows the next generation? You just outlined the logical reasoning behind traditional marriage. I guess there is a rational basis there after all, not based on gay animus.
Instapundit's wife, Dr. Helen, is becoming concerned that with all this fussing over "rights," a lot of men are both opting out of marriage and keeping their pants zipped.'
Dr. Helen is a wise woman, and many others have no idea just how popular this is getting, especially among mature men. Western women will be fighting over sperm bank inventory supplied by the guys who sell it to get weekend crack money.
Enjoy the decline, ladies.
There are more fish in the ocean, gents.
There are more fish in the ocean, gents.
Most of them on the other side of those oceans!
...but I think society has chosen to put the burden on men to control where they put their sperm.
That's rich.
Up until very recently society chose to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
But that doesn't mattter when Althouse demands gay marriage. In that case you can forget about past social arrangements and you can forget about legal complications.
However, if she wants to keep the board tilted in favor of women, she's all for the status quo, she has a keen eye for legal complications, and and you can forget about equal protection.
It's not about principle or reason. It's about her agenda.
A.thouse wrote:
Althouse: "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."
But abortion is all about saving women from the consequence of their actions. The baby dies so the woman doesn't have to deal with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
"The father has rights to that child too. It's not all burdens."
Tip our waiters and try the veal?
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.
http://www.glennsacks.com/sperm_theft_ruling.htm
'Unfortunately, the court couldn’t bring itself to properly uphold Phillips’ reproductive rights, instead ruling that he must continue to pay child support because “when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift…There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.” Of course, in Phillips’ version of events, there was also no agreement that Irons would use his sperm to make a baby.'
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.
That's true, and I made this point the other day. Men and women are biologically unequal when it comes to sex itself. Marriage equalizes us. The father is biologically insecure (is this my child?). The mother is biologically insecure (am I raising this child alone?).
Marriage brings these two unequal people together. It is (obviously) the best institution for mothers, for fathers, and especially for children.
Feminism has long attacked marriage. Because feminism has an irrational and ugly attitude towards fathers, towards mothers, and towards children.
This is why, if feminists are wondering, the overwhelming majority of women are not feminists. Most women like babies, they like fathers, they like marriage and motherhood.
I know, it's like people are naturally conservative or something!
The whole feminist project has been a disaster. All feminists can do at this point is hide the bodies and make jokes about castrating men.
The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation,
Exactly. This is the principal criterion of evolutionary fitness. It is a principle engendered by the natural order. This is the basis for discriminating between certain behaviors and classifying them for rejection, tolerance, and normalization.
Those who do other things are free to make choices
This is tolerance, not normalization. This is the proper classification of most behaviors.
I hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it hate it, when you let yourself go underwater like this. It's frightening. We don't know what you get up to down there, what to make of it. We cannot keep up. And then resurface like nut'n hap'nin, Honey.
The Nutty Perfessor spewed....
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."
That's some funny shit right there!
I was addressing the women here Ritmo.:)
Scare tactics of men going "on strike" is a joke. There will always be plenty who will take their place, "scabs", lol.
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.
"Fun fact. Did you know that when the research was going on to develop a contraceptive medication (pill) that it was first aimed to men? However, one side effect was ball shrinkage. That was unacceptable so research into a male contraceptive stopped, and they switched to researching oral contraceptives (the Pill) for women. Side effects were thrombosis deaths, but that was considered an acceptable risk."
I don't know who considered it an acceptable risk or not. Sure, someone is out there repressing the information in the name of female equality. But I'm thinking that someone quite rightly figured that men wouldn't do it so there was no market for ball shrinking contraception. Would women take contraception that shrunk their boobs?
I find it appalling that so many are promoting casual use of "morning after" hormones and oral contraceptives... and I wonder what the sort that turn off your monthlies will do in the long term. But it seems to be the feminists and supposed pro-woman types who are making those decisions to choose those medical consequences and keep them quiet in the name of freeing women from biology.
Saint Croix:
Good point. The institution of marriage equalizes men and women, so that procreation is not exclusively the woman's burden. Both the father and mother should have a stake in the development of their children. The family, composed of a father, mother, and their children, is a naturally engendered social structure, and it is also the first level of social organization in every society.
I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.
Next Althouse will start shaming the sluts. "You're not the backbone of society!"
While you are equalizing your rage by yelling at the sluts, you might also remind yourself that killing babies is evil.
Or do we have a different standard in regard to infanticide, depending on your sex?
Ha,hs,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!
Well played girlie.
"There are more fish in the ocean, gents."
A quick survey of how that's working out for them will not deliver such optimism. It's a lot easier for a man to find what he wants than it is for a woman to. We just want sex, and companionship. Women want sex, emotional support, financial support, fun, an ear, understanding, adventure, and commitment. The guys sporting all that have their choice, and their choice will be no commitment.
That should be good for 500 comments.
Nice.
"No one cares about you, because no one should!"
And I realize that's not a problem for you.
Dear God.
Alhtouse reaches new low.
Why? Can't make your case unless you've got a roomful of indentured students desperate for grades and recommendations?
more proof that women absolutely cannot be trusted under any circumstances.
Dude this is not a new low.
She has been a lot lower than this.
Sharpen up dude.
I mean what about the time she insisted that Paula Dean knitted the n-word on some kids pajamas?
Women are now "gents"?
When will they attain their ultimate goal of testicle attachment surgery?
It is very entertaining.
Althouse is such a chauvinist. She wants the modern treatment for women when it comes to childbirth and she gets to choose and if her choice means the death of her kid, so be it. Meanwhile guys have to still act like Victorians and do the honorable thing. What that honorable thing is, of course is at the sole discretion of the mother. Assuming of course that she isn't a bitch out to kill her kid on the altar of choice.
I bet althouse is all about men treating women equally, but if we're on a boat that's sinking she wants the men to respect women and children first and die so that she can board the ship first.
"Where is your aspiration?"
Better families through better women. Better women worthy of commitment. Although men seem to be responsible for everything, we didn't screw that up.
tarheel: "That includes the father of the child being fully responsible for financial and other obligations."
By definition: Her body, her choice, her problem. If the existence, or not, of the child is solely her choice, then it cannot be the obligation of any one else. Individual or community. That's a point of basic sanity rooted in current law; not morality.
And if you wish to change that law, it's going to require a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court may be willing to railroad prior Justices by extending 'Rights' where they were denied previously (eg. Dred Scott) but they are certainly not going to retract Rights that never should have been extended in the first place.
As a secondary issue: What financial obligation? And who decides the amount of that obligation? So long as the child is fed, clothed, and sheltered, there cannot be any further obligations. But what is the local, or national cost, of doing such? At what standard of living? Or, under most current laws, what judicial clairvoyancy of the future standard of living the child deserves based on the character of the father?
It's something of a lunatic ideal. And that's all by itself and when we ignore the dicta of the 13th Amendment, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
If a man is held to a debt incurred, or not, solely on the manner in which a third party chose to exercise their inalienable and individual Right, then Child Support is in contravention of the Constitution.
Paternal Rights, such that they are, have a rational legitimacy only to the extent that we acknowledge the illegitimacy of "Her body, her choice." To state that 'he' can bind 'her' based solely on the exercise of her individual Rights is to state that an individual right is "My body, their choice." Which is patently absurd, and it presses her into servitude in numerous ways if you attempt to straighten the tangle out.
There are only two rational and practical options at this point; and they are not mutually exclusive:
1. Press for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the notion of Abortion Rights.
2. Force current law into a state of sanity by acknowledging that it is, for better or worse, currently an individual Right.
Where is the awe over procreation?
Two words.
Wendy. Davis.
Some other words.
Fake. Blonde. Post-menopausal. Troll.
Sad.
"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"
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 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.
Ann wrote: "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."
What are you talking about? You are making that up, in response to nothing. I don't want men to be free to fuck and take no responsibility. Quite the opposite. I think anyone who chooses to fuck should take responsibility. You want that of men, not women. Hypocrite.
And it is you who seek to control men, demanding responsibility of them that you don't demand of women. Nine months of pregnancy? Such a burden, you must have the right to murder your own child. 18 years of child support? No burden, you have no rights. Sexist. Hypocrite. And very poor reading comprehension attributing arguments to those who said no such thing.
Ann said: "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." That is a perfect description of how I feel about you selfish feminist assholes and abortion.
Ann said: "Get the Congressional Budget Office to put a price tag on all that." Um, yeah, I'm not actually proposing that. I was proposing a parallel to your dumb idea, to show how unacceptable it is. And you fell for it by rejecting the parallel. Why don't you try getting the CBO to cost out your proposal? Oh right, that would involve applying the same standards to yourself that you apply to others. And you mind doesn't work that way, does it?
I expect this kind of dumb reasoning and false attribution from an idiot like Amanda Marcotte. And usually your much smarter. But get your 60s feminism going, and your IQ drops about 40 points.
Hey they deleted the post about one of the old "new lows."
You know the one where she said that Paula Deen knitted the n-word or some kids pj's.
Or the one where she accused some woman of having breasts while going to a meeting.
Or where the libertarians made her cry because they talked mean about brown people.
Or the one where she begged for money if she ate a sandwich.
There were a bunch of old "new" lows.
So you're saying that rewarding deceit is a good way to encourage responsibility, tarheel. Got it.
That is not what I am saying at all. It is not about the deceitful woman, it is about the child that the man fathered.
The option is government as father. Government is a piss-poor dad!
Bagoh, there will always be men who aren't selfish pricks. I've found two so far in my life, and a few more who were interested in sex and friendship, no strings attached, at a different stage of my life, which was exactly what I wanted also.
Women do not NEED men to support them unless they plan on being stay at home mothers. And the sad mixed up women who feel they must trick a man into commitment are only cheating themselves in the long run.
Over and under for deletion: five minutes.
I mean what about the time she insisted that Paula Dean knitted the n-word on some kids pajamas?
BZ: That was a Hillary Clinton ad in 2008. Althouse was speculating about a possible subliminal technique.
It was not an emotional, belittling attack on current commenters that sounds like a drunken rant.
That is the other explanation, aside from Althouse's general bitchiness.
Dude that was stupid. This rant is stupid. It is hard to measure how stupid this stupidity can be.
But it is definitely not a new low. Just sayn'
Althouse: "Lame little men, whining about their meager money?"
When shaming replaces argument, it's a confession that you lack one.
Surely, you wouldn't argue that the legal system should rely on tawdry emotional manipulation. (Whether it does in practice or not.)
Althouse doesn't understand what "beta" means. Beta men are the lickspittles who put up with her brand of abuse and hostility.
Oh and by the way try not to take jokes so literally.
Then you will turn into edutcher.
Big Mike:
The developing human life in the womb is wholly innocent. The choice is not abortion. If a human life is conceived, which is later deemed inconvenient to the mother or father, then they can be offered two choices.
One, they can proceed with the pregnancy to term and raise their child with their resources. This may be inconvenient to the mother or father, but if their behavior was voluntary, then they must accept responsibility for their actions.
Two, they can proceed with the pregnancy to term and upon birth the child is removed and raised with community resources. However, the consequence of rejecting their responsibility is that the woman will be spayed, and the man will be neutered. They have demonstrated that they are incapable of self-moderating, responsible behavior and there must be consequences for their immature conduct which are commensurate to their violation.
It is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification without consequences which motivates its progress.
Heterosexual men and women have an unequal burden and responsibility in our world. We cannot deny the terms and circumstances of reality for their convenience or comfort.
Also, althouse, suppose a man WANTS to do the honorable thing and raise his kid. Your freedom to choose prevents him from doing that. So I don't want to hear about how guys are jerks if they don't want to do the right thing.
"Where is the awe over procreation?"
Not with the women who abort their babies, that's for sure. They treat the awe of a developing fetus as if it were a parasite to be ejected from their body because it might not be convenient for their future. Yet if a guy says he doesn't want to raise a baby that a woman forced into the world or financially support it, then he's a villain.
So don't lecture us about the awe of procreation or how men have to be responsible.
I find it appalling that so many are promoting casual use of "morning after" hormones and oral contraceptives... and I wonder what the sort that turn off your monthlies will do in the long term.
Breast cancer. Estrogen is the leading risk factor for breast cancer (which is why women are 100 times more likely than men to get breast cancer).
Breast cancer rates have dramatically increased for women since the (estrogen-based) birth control pill, and abortion.
Having a baby actually decreases your risk of breast cancer. Particularly if you are an underage girl, it's a no-brainer that you should have a baby rather than an abortion, for the sake of your own health.
It's medical malpractice for an abortion doctor to do an abortion on young girls without getting a family history for cancer. But none of these abortion clinics do that.
Feminists view the pill and abortion as empowering for women, so all this information is censored and hidden. Women and girls are not told about breast cancer risk, any more than photographs of aborted babies are published.
Ritmo, lol, I was telling the "gents" here that they are replaceable, that there are more male fishes in the sea. And if men want to go on strike there will always be others who don't.
That is not what I am saying at all. It is not about the deceitful woman, it is about the child that the man fathered.
So the deceit needs to be ignored, you seem to be saying.
"That should be good for 500 comments."
Apparently, half of them will be from you.
I guess I pushed your li'l button.
Your buttonette.
Now you'll have something to do other than jerking off to old pics of Joey Heatherton and Barbara Eden while swilling booze on Court Street.
Inga wrote:
Bagoh, there will always be men who aren't selfish pricks. I've found two so far in my life, and a few more who were interested in sex and friendship, no strings attached, at a different stage of my life, which was exactly what I wanted also.
women who abort their kids are selfish pricks. Especially if they don't tell the guy, or don't give him any say in the matter.
But you seem to view that as a fundamental right. If so, don't complain if guys are equally selfish pricks who don't like feeling beholden to your choice simply because you chose to bring a baby into the world.
Men should have the right to be just as big pricks.
Nice.
That was a good one.
Well played.
The bottom line does seem to be...
Men should treat all women as if they are the enemy.
Men, being biological creatures, will rationally choose to impregnate as many women as possible in hopes that some of their offspring make it to adulthood. This shouldn't be too hard. HARD is what society has attempted over the centuries of insisting on marriage and support, trading a reproductive strategy that favors men for one that favors women and families.
By the way was soliciting $200 to eat something was just the precursor to opening your portal?
How does that old joke go...we already established what you are...we are just haggling about the price.
we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices.
Gee, that's almost like a criticism of Roe v. Wade or something.
The question is what do women aspire to beyond rights without responsibility?
I take care of people. I support financially, I support emotionally, I protect, I encourage, I teach, I tend, I nurture, and I enjoy and appreciate the results of all that. I don't need a woman holding my leash to do any of it.
When shaming replaces argument, it's a confession that you lack one.
Jquip: Hear, hear!
This is a full-fledged meltdown.
It's not like Althouse is just some yahoo commenter getting hot in a comment thread. This is her blog under her name as a tenured professor at a top law school.
After yesterday's foofaraw, it's not like she got caught by surprise.
Jr. You may be surprised to know that yes indeed I consider them to be incredibly selfish. But it's not my place to control by law their right to an abortion, I'd like to limit it as I've said before, but to take away their entire choice in the matter, no.
It is a wonderful thing that you are showing your true self. That is a lot healthier for you than the old pretense. Good for you! Stay true to your real ultra liberal feminazi persona.
It's a good look for you.
You're still full of shit. (There's no point of rational debate with an irrational person.) Hold women responsible for anything? NO WAY!!! It's too hard to prove they lied.
Besides, I'm against rape, abandonment and cheating (unless it's women).
BTW - men should be able to sign away their parental rights and responsibilities at any point during the pregnancy or within 3 months of discovering they have offspring.
Ironicaly, I read this in Dr. Helen's book shortly after Meade's fanciful statement: "given that much legislation in the area of family law and domestic violence makes guys out to be potential drunken louts ou to rape, beat, or abandon women..." Yep, this is the societal attitude that Meade supports.
Hey dude that's not right. Don't be mean like that. The Nutty Perfessor is entitled to give as good as she gets. Don't discourage her from jumping down into the pit and mixing it up with the peons.
I think it is great.
When you strike a nerve the dead body often twitches. Just sayn'
I concur with Prof. Althouse. Under the common law, men were responsible for the children they created. The reason was to protect those children. Men can decide whether to have sex or not. Unplanned pregnancy, even pregnancy through deception, is always a possibility. Men can minimize this risk by only having sex with women to whom they are married. Indeed, that is one of the points of the law - to encourage men to have sex within marriage so that every child will have a mother and a father. So I have no sympathy for men who sleep around and then complain that their girlfriend deceived them about the use of birth control. Don't sleep around and you won't have that problem. And only marry women with whom you want to have children. Problem solved.
And I defy you to find someone here who hasn't jerked off to a photo of Joey Heatherton or Barbara Eden.
So there.
I am absolutely not forgetting about that.
Men need to value and guard their genetic material.
By guard I'm assuming you mean carry a portable incinerator around to burn the stuff instead of throwing it in the garbage? What exactly do you think is an appropriate way to dispose of a used condom?
The lameness of men who throw this stuff around is mindboggling. Don't be splooge stooge.
In other words, it's the man's fault, always, with a touch of ad hominem thrown in.
Good lord, flush it down the damn toilet!
Also swilling is not the preferred manner of consumption of imbibing on Court St.
We sip. We taste. We might occasionally guzzle.
Swilling is a more rural pursuit. Just saying.
I'm withholding my precious commenter fluids. No more uncontrolled ejaculations of thought or furtive spurts of humor.
Saint Croix:
There must be another reason why Professor Althouse includes abortion in the definition of "reproductive rights". She recognizes the innocence of human life from conception to birth. She recognizes that elective abortion is an act of premeditated murder without cause or due process. She recognizes that at least men must accept responsibility for their voluntary behavior. It is not immediately clear if she also recognizes the complementary and equal responsibility of women.
She also recognizes that behaviors should be classified for rejection, tolerance, and normalization in a civilized society. Unfortunately, her support in each class is not always consistent, and the explanation of that discrepancy is not immediately clear.
Also to reinterate what you just deleted from the thread it is comforting to realize that once again you got everything wrong.
We do not swill our booze on Court St.
We sip. We imbibe. Occasionally we even guzzle.
We never swill. That is a more rural pursuit.
Just like a man not to pick up after himself, socks, underwear, used condom......
I think Ann is trying hard to get all the straight dudes to recognize it is a wide world out there and not all women are legally jaded, grasping, and status-addled as American women. ))) WHAP ((( la la la la la, It is becoming brilliantly pellucid why Eastern European beauties are so doggone doubly triply quadruply attractive. Yowza. An za vay zey spoke iz zo intweeging.
I saw the word pellucid once and thought I'd try it out. How'zit sound? I'm not dig'n'nit.
Where's Ritmo, Lem and the Crack Emcee?
We are going to need their help if we want to bat 500 tonight?
Except, Douglas, that what you describe had a corollary of what was required of women. It had two halves.
Sex was about reproduction. Men were strictly limited in sex partners and while there were whores and prostitutes and mistresses, if a man messed around with a woman who wasn't, then society would force him to marry her.
Feminism has insisted that sex is not *about* reproduction any more and that women have thrown off, entirely, the half of that equation that applied to women.
And now we're going to tell men they've got to stick with the old ways?
Men, being biological creatures, will rationally choose to impregnate as many women as possible in hopes that some of their offspring make it to adulthood.
Yes, alpha-beta dynamics is basic biology. Althouse is using the "beta" concept as an insult. I guess she picked it up at a bingo parlor or something. I didn't know senior citizens rolled like that.
It's not actually healthy for a society to have alphas impregnating large numbers of women, who then become single moms, or aborting moms.
Islamic society, for instance, has exactly this dynamic. Rich and successful men are allowed multiple wives. While all the betas scream in rage out on the street, and blow themselves up.
Imagine Althouse out on the Islamic street, screaming "Beta!" at all the losers who don't have a woman.
We can't blame women for biology, wanting the best possible man for her children. Nor can we blame men for biology, wanting to have sex with as many women as possible in order to ensure genes are passed to offspring.
All we can do with our biology is recognize it and attempt to contain it within marriage. The feminist attack on marriage has been a disaster for our society.
So the deceit needs to be ignored, you seem to be saying.
No, I am not saying the deceit needs to be ignored. However, I am saying that the man is responsible for the reproductive results of voluntarily putting his sperm inside a woman's vagina. If she is a deceitful person trying to trick him into fatherhood, he can blame his poor judgment. But he is responsible for the financial and emotional support of the resulting child.
Real men take responsibility for the results of their choices. (I repeat I am a 70 year old male. Despite having had a successful career and a 45 year marriage to a wonderful woman, being a dad and granddad are the aspects of my life that have given me the most gratification.)
Well, what if instead of requiring BOTH bio-parents' permission for adoption, adoption-at-birth became required if EITHER bio-parent asked for adoption? The backlog of people who want to adopt newborns is incredible -- and if you can't persuade the kid's other parent to let you care for it as a single parent, how likely are you to be fit as a single parent, really?
Ann,
To save commenters the trouble of telling me again: I know, there was an underage boy one time who was the victim of statutory rape and made to pay child support. So craft a narrow exception for people like him. The general principle is a good one.
I believe there have been many more than one of those. Then there are cases like the one (likely more than one, as the case at the top of the thread here isn't quite as remember it), 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.
There are also cases of what anyone would call rape if a man did them to a woman -- obtaining sperm from a man who was passed out, asleep, or otherwise in no position to consent. Child support has been ordered in cases like that, too.
Understood, yes, that the child does need to be fed and housed and clothed. But in such cases as these, that ought to be the responsibility of the rapists (statutory or otherwise), not the victims, and neither should it be the responsibility of any man who did not do anything that could conceivably (without the woman's active intervention) get her, or anyone else, pregnant.
"And I defy you to find someone here who hasn't jerked off to a photo of Joey Heatherton or Barbara Eden."
Or Moms Mabley.
Inga said...
"There are more fish in the ocean, gents."
A lesbian owned sperm bank. Go for it , Inga !
We never swill. That is a more rural pursuit.
Lol. In boxes, no less!
Don't worry Dude. I'll help ya get to 500!
Good lord, flush it down the damn toilet!
Hrmm, our Waste Management dept. specifically tells us not to do that.
Just like a man not to pick up after himself, socks, underwear, used condom......
Throwing something in the trash is not pickup up after himself?
Douglas wrote:
Under the common law, men were responsible for the children they created. The reason was to protect those children.
except under abortion men don't have a say if that baby is born. And the child certainly isn't protected.
So, if a woman's choice takes away that ability to be a dad, then we can't really talk about common law. The woman's choice changes that.
Because it would be inconvenient for the mother to carry the baby to term. So, that's the new dynamic. In the interest of choice and family planning and honoring the logic of the woman's argument guys should similarly get to have a choice.
The man should have the right to say, being a dad will cause me financial hardship, therefore I renounce my rights. It won't prevent a woman from having a baby that she wants. It just makes equitable the argument that you can choose to not have a child burden your future, whether you're a man or a woman.
And at any rate, if the woman chose otherwise and got the abortion, the man would have no right to fatherhood anyway.
"A lesbian owned sperm bank. Go for it , Inga !"
7/5/13, 8:29 PM
--------------------
No thanks Michael, I'm a bit too old, besides I had my four children the old fashioned (and exceedingly fun) way.
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.
Inga,
Just like a man not to pick up after himself, socks, underwear, used condom......
If you put something in the trash, you don't necessarily expect that your girlfriend is going to fetch it back out again and go all turkey-baster, do you? Where else would you put it? I've lived in enough places with finicky plumbing over the decades that I'd think any man who tried to flush it would be making a big mistake. Though possibly not as big a mistake as the tidy guy who put it where his mercenary "girlfriend" (who wants a baby and 18 years' worth of his wallet, but not a husband) could get her claws on it.
Sorry, but this sort of thing, rare though it is, seriously pisses me off.
"Jim Dolan is Lisa's husband and business partner at Lee Lee's Valise. Before deciding to support her wife and open the shop, Jim worked as an accountant, doing the books for most of the small businesses in the neighborhood."
Her wife?
Who knew?
"You guys... I wonder if you feel anything at all."
And we were wondering if you do anything else.
Things can be taken out of the trash, why don't men realize that their sperm can be misused and take care to not just leave it lying around, even in the trash. Put it in a Kleenex, put it in your pocket, lock it in the glove compartment of your car, burn it, give it to the cat, sheesh.
"The alternative is true manhood, but is that something you are capable of? Apparently not!
I laugh in your scrunched up crying little face."
Thank you for being honest. Tonight my youngest daughter is flying to Jamaica at my expense. I have raised her and paid for her education. About two months ago, I had to break the news to her that her mother and I were never married.
I was that prosperous prospective father the articles are about. I have four older kids and have been married twice. This relationship was always marked by the woman's dislike of my other kids and her wish that I was a 35 year old fighter pilot, which was her dream.
We have had an off and on relationship over 25 years. She never wanted to get married and now we see each other from time to time. She lived with me in my house at times for 20 years. She would move out for five years and then reappear with no notice when I was out of town.
The hardest thing was telling my daughter. She doesn't like her mother very much but yearns for approval from her. Her mother wanted the perfect child and our daughter never quite measured up. She is a beautiful girl and graduated from college this spring. I would have happily married her mother but that was not what she wanted. She wanted a child and someone to pay for it.
I did far more than my legal necessaries. We have traveled all over the world. When I wanted to take my other kids, they went with me alone.
I wouldn't post this except I am sure they don't read this blog.
Inga, you are a fool.
Ann, you have no idea how men think.
There are pretty much two reproductive strategies on Earth... throw as many of your offspring out into the world as possible and then ignore them... or have a small number of offspring and care for them to make sure they grow up.
Society expects men to have the attachment to their offspring of clams spawning. Anything else is "trying to control women."
Being proud of getting a woman pregnant or being possessive or attached or, heaven help us, wanting to know for sure that it's his, or being protective of his unborn offspring is vilified.
Until she says... "love this baby and pay for it"... at which point he's to obediently do just that.
It is TWISTED.
500 Comments. Is Someone asking for Betamax?
I just have to say how much I am enjoying Althouse's little meltdown and hissy fit today.
I take back anything I ever said about the only value of this site being the external commentators.
Bon mot's like today prove that our hostess, does indeed, contribute something of value to the readers.
Comic value, but value nonetheless.
I am Blessed with Sperm. Sometimes it Exudes from My Pores, Sometimes it is the Spinach in My Teeth.
"Then there are cases like the one (likely more than one, as the case at the top of the thread here isn't quite as remember it), 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."
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.
Michael, no more a fool than you, and after your story, much less a fool, obviously. I had four kids that turned out to be wonderful peole I'm proud of and I don't come on Althouse
Ike you and bitch about them, Michael.
Mu
Did you quit taking your Thorazine? Or, is it Mellaril?
Men who complain about being lied to, cheated on and suffering bias under the law and in the court are unworthy. Hah! You've really stepped off the deep end now.
I must admit I'm terribly risk adverse. I don't think there's a woman out there worth taking out to lunch, let alone marrying or risk having another child from. I already have 4 kids who prefer me to their mothers. Only my youngest daughter is a minor now. She live with me 100% of the time by her choice.
BTW - have you discussed being risk adverse regarding AIDS with your son? Failure to do so killed my brother. It's their fault if they get AIDS, you know.
I Telepathically Control My Sperm: Ejaculate, Turn Left, Turn Left, Turn Left. End up at the Kidney.
I Name Each of My Sperm Biblical Names. Molokai is always the Most Feisty.
Sorry - I don't have the patience to wade through 280+ comments (should have typed this sooner) so I may be repetitive but here goes:
1) in principle, if a woman told a man she was infertile and in fact she got pregnant, he may be liable for child support, but couldn't he sue her for fraud? Presumably he doesn't have proof of her deceit --
which is why men should only have sex in a situation in which they could accept unexpected parenthood -- e.g., marriage or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
The problem now is that we can't communicate that message to men -- especially young men -- when at the same time, women (at least those women who consider the unborn child not to have moral value or "personhood") have the legal right to reject this unintended parenthood. How do we tell men "don't deposit your sperm unless you'd be OK with being a dad" when women trumpet their "reproductive rights" and are more than willing to take advantage of this unequal status?
So the tables are turned and women -- again, those women who don't have a problem aborting -- can have "free sex" and men, not so much (unless, of course, the men in question are sure that the women they have sex with don't know their names).
Not too different from the double standard around alcohol-soaked sex: if a man and a woman are both drunk, he, but not she, is responsible for their actions.
"If you really cared about men, you'd try to do something to elevate them, as I am trying right now."
1. "Lame little men, whining about their meager money?
No one cares about you, because no one should!"
2. "Don't be splooge stooge."
3. "Now you'll have something to do other than jerking off to old pics of Joey Heatherton and Barbara Eden while swilling booze on Court Street."
Feel elevated yet, men?
My Sperm Know Karate. They Will Never Be Taken By Force in a Uterine Alley.
Gymkata!
Oh, and it bugs me that a woman gets to make the decision about whether to involve the father/collect child support. If the child has a right to support from both parents, why is it the mother's decision?
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.
...
I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance.
Frankly, this is disgusting. It is the equivalent to responding to arguments that rape should be illegal with something along the lines of:
"I don't understand why man would want to have a sex with a woman who didn't have the simple common sense to avoid situations where she is vulnerable to rape, but I have no sympathy for her.
I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance."
How can you "elevate men" and at the same time go all Victorian on them?
Granted, it's "elevating" to assume and insist that men take responsibility for what they do... and equally lowering and insulting to insist that women don't have to do that.
I would like to take credit for this war on women, and the subsequent counterattack. Unfortunately the women had but one weapon: shaming. Their weapon failed due to it being fired from a platform of little respect. This is not your Mom's army of womanhood.
Ann,
What about the women here who are taking the same position? Are we all, well, "Uncle Thomasinas," or something?
Women who rape men (statutorially or otherwise); women who steal discarded condoms after an act of oral sex that couldn't possibly have caused pregnancy unless the woman took elaborate steps to make it happen -- these are not victims assuming a heavy burden caused by irresponsible men who ought to stop whining and pay up, already. These are victimizers who want a baby and a steady income stream, but not the actual man who is the source of both.
Other cases are dicier, for different reasons. It's not easy to prove that a woman has lied about being on birth control -- certainly it would be impossible after she's given birth, unless she forgot to keep picking up her prescription while she was just not taking it. And the case of "fathers" who discover that they aren't the biological parents of their children only at divorce, and discover that they're on the hook for child support anyway, while the biological father is totally off the hook -- after a few years, the man is the de facto father.
My own inclination is to grant custody presumptively to the husband in a case like that, unless the mother is willing to name the biological father and seek support from him. If she hasn't a clue who the biological father is, that would be all the more reason for granting custody to the man who has been acting as father.
Now all you men out there, be sure to show your appreciation for the "elevation" by doing your Amazon shopping through the Althouse portal!
Do you expect Meade to retire on the lush pension plan provided by the taxpayers supporting the University of Wisconsin alone?
I concur with Prof. Althouse. Under the common law, men were responsible for the children they created.
And of course Roe v. Wade wrecks the common law. Now women control reproduction, more than ever. Women make men fathers (against their will) and strip men of fatherhood (against their will).
"It's my body, it's my choice!"
So the argument that fathers are responsible for baby-making has fallen to pieces. The American judiciary has stripped men of all rights, and thus all responsibilities. Reproduction doesn't concern us anymore. The Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear that fatherhood is irrelevant.
Now our feminist judiciary jails 50,000 men every day for being bad fathers, while our Pravda media hides all the dead babies that are killed by bad mothers.
The whole thing is a clusterfuck of liberal stupidity.
The reason was to protect those children. Men can decide whether to have sex or not.
So can women!
While biology is utterly different when it comes to men and women, we can and should find common ground in laws that apply to both sexes equally.
For instance, infanticide is bad and should be illegal.
Another good universal rule is that both men and women "can decide whether to have sex or not." We can and do make exceptions for rape.
Feminism has destroyed this dynamic. The fact that women get pregnant and men do not is a biological inequality that cuts both ways. It's always cut both ways. Marriage was invented as an improvement over biology. To try to tell men to follow chivalry and be good fathers, while women go on slut walks and kill unwanted children, is idiotic at best.
I separate my Sperm into the Green Sperm and the Red Sperm. I keep the Blue Sperm Internal.
Sperm is Cursive.
In the Seventies Women Bedazzled Their Jeans with My Sperm. Like little Plastic Rhinestones.
Althouse: You are a professor of law and the owner of this blog. You are expressing yourself like a shrieking feminist thug.
If you've got arguments to make, make them. Don't be surprised by disagreement. Don't assume that only unworthy people could possibly disagree with you. Don't take it on yourself to shame people and lecture them into line with your positions.
What do you want in this blog? More shrieking? More shaming? I know that plenty of it goes on from both sides and that I have contributed as well.
Speaking for myself, I would prefer more civil discussions here.
Like Digital Information, Sperm Wants To Be Free.
Ann,
Your phrase "physiologically cannot produce conception" is obviously wrong, since it did.
And you, a law professor!
I wrote,
physiologically cannot produce conception without the woman's deliberate and willfully deceptive action.
You will agree, I think, that if a woman gives a man (wearing a condom) a blowjob, and no other sexual contact of any kind occurs, and the condom is thrown into the trash, and that's the end of the story, the chances of the woman's getting pregnant are zero, right?
Would you have passed an answer on a law exam in which a student simply ignored a qualifying phrase like that? Is that your usual ideal of textual interpretation?
I fear for the future of humankind, with such stupidity in our inheritance.
Gee, thanks. As the child of two UW/Madison Ph.D.s, I'm glad we've been keeping up the good work in the dumbing-down-the-gene-pool department.
Ann's losing the argument badly, she knows this, and she takes refuge in shrieking insults. Pathetic.
Who are these beta men who you claim wish to have sex and take no responsibility? I haven't read anyone make that argument here. Quote me some language. You're just making up a straw man because you have nothing to say about the people.
Everyone here is arguing in favor of manly responsibility, not against it. The only one arguing on behalf of irresponsibility is you. But that's female irresponsibility, so you assume that as natural.
This is really the most I've ever seen you embarrass yourself.
Fellatio Before Marriage, Intercourse After. I Love Solving Problems.
Sorry, typo.
Should read: You're just making up a straw man because you have nothing to say about the argument people are actually making.
Condoms are Like Knitted Turtleneck Sweaters. Plan Accordingly.
"Women who rape men (statutorially or otherwise); women who steal discarded condoms after an act of oral sex that couldn't possibly have caused pregnancy unless the woman took elaborate steps to make it happen..."
Oh, come on. It's not rocket science.
Re: "Oh, come on. It's not rocket science."
I Like To Think of My Penis as a Rocket. With Boosters. Please Do Not Deprive Me. My Penis is Not a Prius.
"nn's losing the argument badly, she knows this, and she takes refuge in shrieking insults."
Okay, try this one: It's Friday night. Why the hell are you here bellyaching about your wiener?
Althouse: You are unworthy.
Althouse: Lame little men, whining about their meager money?
No one cares about you, because no one should!
I laugh in your scrunched up crying little face.
Cruel neutrality, ladies and gentlemen!
If I Had a Dime for Every Woman Who Wanted My Used Condom I'd Need a Nickel to Make A Quarter.
I Am that Good.
There are a few women here like DBQ, Synova, etc. who seem to be willing to take responsibility, and carry their end of the bargain, even when it's tough or not what they envisioned.
That's so much more impressive. That's worth committing to, but irresponsible harpies always looking for a better deal, and a cushy landing are losing it all as they try to have it all.
And notice how reductive feminism is. It reduces women all the time. To ovaries, to vaginas, to their uterus. This is the rhetoric coming from women!
Similarly, feminists reduce men--and fathers--to sperm and money, sperm and money.
And babies are reduced to sub-human beings, to tissue easily discarded.
Babies are nothing, fathers are irrelevant, and women are solipsistic know-nothings. What an appalling and stupid ideology. No wonder so many women reject it.
I believe Althouse is demonstrating the concept of what the Egyptian's refer to as a "Hyzaboon."
Diversity!
Re: "Why the hell are you here bellyaching about your wiener?"
1. I am not From NYC.
2. He is Not Mayor Yet.
(500 gets closer)
Why in on a Friday night?
It's not every day you get to watch in real time as a self-important ivory tower academic melts down publically.
So that when her colleagues and students snicker in class when forwarding eachother links to her eloquent attempts to "elevate" men, we can say, "yeah, we were there for that. Good times."
" I had four kids that turned out to be wonderful peole I'm proud of and I don't come on Althouse
Ike you and bitch about them, Michael."
Why did I know you would purposefully misunderstand me ? That is her picture with me in Venice in my avatar. She did all the things my other children did, whose mothers loved me. It wasn't her fault.
When I told her, she said "You mean I was an accident !" I told her no because (I didn't say it) her mother obviously wanted her. I had no choice. It was the old stopping the pill without mentioning it story. I was 17 years older than the mother. She wanted a younger husband but had had no luck.
It will be much harder for women to do this in the future as men are catching on.
You are still a fool, all the sadder for not realizing it.
All the other children accept her completely and we laugh about our weird family.
Ann Althouse said...
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.
Althouse goes the full old testament. I like it.
There is little in life that is more fraught than male-female relations outside of a good marriage. A good marriage largely solves the problem. Unfortunately, a good marriage is a mystery that blesses some couples and not others.
Now and forever Rex Harrison settles it all.
Do NOT drink an Orange Julius Beverage Before Sexual Activity: it Makes Your Sperm Orangy Irresistible.
I find it interesting that Althouse apparently believes that justice is reserved only for those of virtue, and additionally that being victimized makes one unvirtuous.
Contrary to everything I had been taught, it apparently is ok to rape prostitutes. Or maybe it is only ugly women that it is ok to rape? I'm not sure I'm convinced yet, but I'll consider it.
Or does that only apply to men?
I dare say a male professor at U. of W. who spent a week attacking his female commentors on his blog the way Althouse has been attacking her male commentors would soon be looking for a new job.
"Babies are prostitutes for women, fathers are women, and women are solipsistic know-nothings."
FIFY. I told you, guys:
Blowjobs.
And when faced with anyone - anyone - with the potential to cut of your whacker, leverage your own potential for violence. Don't let anyone talk you out of it. Not women, not the police, not religion. Feminism is a zero-sum game. Play to win. I shouldn't have to remind you after this display:
They leave you no choice.
If you're following along at home men have duties, responsibilities, obligations, and can have the gains from their work (or "meager money" if you prefer) taken based on an appeal to someone else's needs.
Women have rights, choices, and the ability to define their own concept of existence and the meaning of human life.
Equality!
NONE OF YOU COMPLAINING MEN ARE WORTHY!! NONE OF YOU STUPID SONS of BITCHES ARE WORTHY!! NARY A ONE!!
Why the hell are you here bellyaching about your wienerS?
I'm witnessing the theater of the absurd in blog form. Sometimes I watch the really bad movies on the Sci Fi channel just to see how bad they are. They're comical while attempting to be serious and scary.
Ann has surpassed the comical aspect of those movies, but I'm not sure what she's attempting to be. Psychotic?
"Feel elevated yet, men?"
Always. With the right woman, if you make yourself worthy, even you can become a Jizz Wiz instead of a Stooge of Splooge, Fred4MomJeans.
Women who think they'll get their asses kicked don't trick men. They do fuck and blow, though.
See?
Violence changes everything,...
Ah, there is the homeless men's Kerry.
I'm just curious what makes you think I was at some point associated with that Fred screen name.
Honest question, from going back and reading some of Fred's comments, it seems he was a much more courteous commenter than I care to be.
Feel elevated yet, men?
A few weeks ago, at church, I went in to the restroom after service, and was startled at the urinal to see the antenna of a cockroach sticking out from under the lip of the thing. I gave it a second to run, but it wasn't going anywhere, so I did what I had to do. Turned out it was dead. A dead cockroach, getting pissed on in a urinal.
From then until now, any time I've had a down moment, I think, "at least I'm not that thing."
Althouse has now replaced the dead urinal cockroach as the most pathetic state of being imaginable.
So yeah, I feel elevated compared to her.
OK, Ann. You say the man is an idiot if he throws a condom used for oral sex in the trash, presumably because it ought to occur to any person not an idiot that someone might go rummaging around in the trash to find it again and make use of it. Meanwhile, the woman is also an idiot, because anyone stupid enough not to assume that any woman in this situation would fetch the condom out in a trice, inseminate himself, and get 18 years of garnished wages is obviously going to have troglodytes for offspring, and she'll be stuck with one. Thought the aforesaid wage garnishment won't hurt.
And you seem to be arguing that a man dumb enough to trust a woman, and a woman dumb enough to attempt to have a child by a man dumb enough to trust her, are going to have an even dumber child. What is this? "Even two generations of imbeciles are enough"?
And just to be clear, the money you get from your sugar momma (second degree from the taxpayers) isn't enough to make you the poor man's Kerry.
Hence homeless.
Talking about Sperm Should be Uplifting, By Definition. If I were the Sperm Whisperer I would Soothe This Crowd.
"Now once upon a time not too long ago
A nigga like myself had to strong arm a hoe
This is not a hoe in the sense of having a pussy
But a pussy having no God Damn sense, try and push me"
99 Problems
That means anyone - women and men alike,....
Titus said: "Sometimes when I pinch a loaf I feel like I am giving birth to a baby.
When you crap a turd the size of a football.....we'll talk."
Ann,
Okay, try this one: It's Friday night. Why the hell are you here bellyaching about your wiener?
I'm by myself with two cats on this Friday night, because my husband is in Colorado conducting at a music festival. There's nothing particularly uproarious in the name of nightlife in Salem, even were I interested in nightlife, which I'm not. I was checking email and blogs while eating dinner, and now I am going to settle down with a book.
And I have no wiener. Not even the Oscar Mayer kind. Or the Hitachi Magic Wand kind, either. Sorry.
Ann Althouse said :
The child is real and needs support, and anyone who expressed horror — as Instapundit did — at "The Life of Julia" should understand why we hold men responsible for the consequences they risk.
Sorry, Ann, but there are two huge problems with this :
1) The current law makes the man liable, but he has NO custody rights. If it is her body, her choice, howcome the law seizes the man's assets, but does not give him custody rights?
2) 'Child Support' would be fairer if it were indexed to the cost of the child by some published standard. Instead, it is seized as a PERCENTAGE OF THE MAN'S INCOME. Yes, a percentage. Also, 'feminists' fought hard to ensure that the mother does NOT, I repeat, does NOT have to show she spent the money on the child. Hence, 'child support' is just alimony that is packaged in a way that makes any critic of it unfair.
3) As a result of 1) and 2), the current law encourages paternity fraud, and also encourages the mother to separate the child and father, for her own profit.
I am surprised that Ann Althouse did not not these details about current 'child support' laws.
Althouse wrote:
you are no longer men, and women should be rejecting you. I can't account for all these women,
likewise, if a man wanted a child to raise he should be rejecting pro choice women.
You're the pro choice woman. And you're talking about men not being responsible, when millions of babies are aborted each year?
Some gall.
Concepts to keep in mind for future discussion include "slut shaming," "sex positive," and "victim-blaming."
Inga wrote:
Jr. You may be surprised to know that yes indeed I consider them to be incredibly selfish. But it's not my place to control by law their right to an abortion, I'd like to limit it as I've said before, but to take away their entire choice in the matter, no.
but it is your place to control, by law, the fact that men will pay for a child you chose YOURSELF. You've given them NO choice whatsoever for control over their life.
Yes, it would be selfish for a man NOT to take care of his kid, but it want HIS choice.
That's the problem when you say its a woman's choice alone. If up its your choice, then don't expect the dad to pay for your choice if he doesn't want to. Just as you don't have to carry the child to term if You don't want to.
Naw Crack. Anal is the answer. Any woman who'll push a nut outa her ass to stuff it up her cunt...well we all know Ann wouldn't do it. And for the crazies I would think it would be unlikely to succeed. Sodomy all the way till they prove their worth. Teach 'em their place, too.
Ann, the truth is men have given women too much, and now it is time to take some of it back. How much? Keep on talking.
Abortion illegal on pain of death for the abortionist, death or sterilization for the woman. Except in the hard cases that would end up being a thousand a year not a million a year. If even the Catholic Church can get behind five days for morning after pills or support the IUD then the need for talking is done.
No, women need more of the burden. Don't wanna get big, ladies? Don't fuck. Don't want to be left alone with the child? Be attractive to hold your man. Don't want to be dumped by a heel? Don't spread your legs for heels. Don't recognize a heel when you see one? Keep your legs shut.
One more word outa you and we take the vote back. Or is that step one? Now bend over.
Oh right, you can't breed anymore. Really then you can die now. Nobody needs you to teach law or, guffaw, to blog. Although I guess you could serve to drain the nuts of those who aren't ready for fatherhood, as long as you can still lubricate and don't sag too badly. So keep up the exercise and the Amazon supplements, dear!
Hmmm. How about elective abortion legal but only combined with hysterectomy? That way it can never happen again. None of that reversible shit, take the womb or at least the ovaries.
I mean do you actually WANT polygamy? Is that the actual endgame of gay marriage? Do you in fact want to be owned, dragged into a cave and raped into submission, as long as it's by a sheik or a lord or the biggest caveman, and not a decent man who is your equal? If you don't want a decent man you shouldn't have one. If you're not worthy of equality then don't be equal.
And don't try to hide behind sisterhood. Decent sensible women like DBQ and Freeman know I don't mean them. Inga might even have a moment of sanity. Truth is Althouse you are alone. And you'd rather take it in the ass and suck dick than be alone. (Meade, my boy, that's a hint. Wink wink nudge nudge say no more.)
BTW, speaking of cocksucking, I haven't descended to your current level yet. Descending to your level would be telling you that you wouldn't have creaky old-woman voice if only you'd swallow. But I wouldn't do that. That would be mean and cruel and bitchy.
Like you.
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.
Don't taunt happy fun ball.
No, really.....don't.
Feminists are such nasty, withered, soulless, unhappy scrunts. Unaware of how they look to the rest of the world. Self absorbed and so absolutely clueless as to how the world really is and absolutely stunned when reality doesn't conform to their exacting expectations.
Disclaimer. I am not to blame for anyone seeing themselves in this. It is just my observation. If the Foo shits......
Nice one.
Unfortunately TLC controlled the website and made many errors that I tried to correct. But they wouldn't fix anything so there it stays.
Sometimes when somebody makes a stupid error it stays up forever.
Which sort of explains this blog.
Nice to know you are monitoring it so closely.
On the way to 500.
Althouse wrote:
The alternative is true manhood, but is that something you are capable of? Apparently not!
Step up and be a man. Oh wait, I choose to kill your kid. So,sit back down. How about, step up and be a woman. You wanted the sole choice, took away the mans right to be a father. If you got impregnated by a heel, and he doesn't want a kid, but you do deal with YOUR choice and man up and pay for it. Since you chose it.
Oh and by the way. Having met both Althouse and Honey Boo Boo in person I have to say that Honey Boo Boo is both smarter and a much nicer person.
She is also taller. Just sayn'
Oh and Meade, how do you feel about the fact that Ann would cuckold you in five seconds if it amused pleased or profited her a scintilla to do so? If your answer is that she's fixed anyway and that she's not made out of soap, she won't wear out, well I commend you, sir. You have put her in her proper place. (And you have read your Nin.) Just hope she stays clean.
"Unfortunately TLC controlled the website and made many errors"...
Trooper, you of all people should know better. A man never explains. His friends don't need it and his detractors will never believe him anyway.
Althouse: "Okay, try this one: It's Friday night. Why the hell are you here bellyaching about your wiener?"
Dunno. Maybe it's this or lose control of his sperm. Or it may just be that the original post, made by you on a Friday, is your response to Reynold's statements about cash-flows and sperm herding.
To recap if you've forgotten, those points were:
1. Who cares about the sperm donor? Some man needs to pay for some child.
2. Who cares about good law/governance when we can festton what we have with heroic exceptions
3. Men can achieve equality by undergoing an out-patient, and largely non-reversible, modification to their body. Securing their future progeny by seeking the commercial services of professional sperm wranglers.
Which is, you know, exactly like an out-patient procedure that is transient, state subsidized, and requires no future contracts or contained maintenance.
Though, in mentioning it, it seems odd that your solutions wander about the set: "Pay a woman for 18 years", and "Pay a gender non-specific freezer operator for 18 years", and "Grow a pair".
"Having met both Althouse and Honey Boo Boo in person I have to say that Honey Boo Boo is both smarter and a much nicer person."
What kind of man seeks status by naming the celebrities he's met?
So beta.
Thank you Meade but that still irks me royally.
The people at the TLC website were so bad that they had to be from an Ivy League college.
What's dumber than beginning a comment with "Oh and..."?
Especially from a guy...
The Baron only named one celebrity, Ann. Please write better.
Good one girlie.
Kind of bold to consider yourself a celebrity.
You do realize that you not even a pimple on the diseased genitalia of celebrity? Just sayn.
I love it when you come to play though.
Let's keep it going in the drive for five!
Good night Prof. Dream of me fucking you very, very hard. Then wake up and realize you should be so lucky.
Oh, and I'd apologize for tripping over yet another of your endless series of pet peeves, Ann, strewn untidily across the blog floor as they are so that one can scarcely avoid them. Except for the fact that I'm not sorry.
"1. "Lame little men, whining about their meager money?
How is that different an a woman WHINING about how she has to kill her kid because, whaaah, she won't have her great career,and right now she can't afford a kid. Its ok for her to kill her baby over it, but somehow a guy can't have that as a consideration?
Maybe he can't afford child support right now. Maybe he is trying to get his career going. Maybe he just doesn't want the kid or the responsibility.
If it's good enough for women, why not for men?
Why can't he advocate for the abortion? As in, "honey you should really choose to kill the kid, because frankly I don't want to be a dad because of the career and such. I can't choose for you, but will just let you know that if you choose the kid, you'll be on your own.So take that into consideration before you choose".
Heartless? Sure. But we've already got past the point where women kill their baby for this exact reason. That's what family planning is all about.
So, pro choice women, of all people should not be getting up on your high horses.you are advocating killing your baby for convenience. You already lost the moral debate.
kmg,
'Child Support' would be fairer if it were indexed to the cost of the child by some published standard. Instead, it is seized as a PERCENTAGE OF THE MAN'S INCOME. Yes, a percentage. Also, 'feminists' fought hard to ensure that the mother does NOT, I repeat, does NOT have to show she spent the money on the child. Hence, 'child support' is just alimony that is packaged in a way that makes any critic of it unfair.
Exactly so. "Child support" ought not to mean "keeping mother and child in the style to which they have become accustomed." It ought mean providing for the necessities of the child -- meaning decent food, shelter, clothing, school supplies. And I can't see why basic reporting requirements (I mean very basic, like what was spent on clothing, books, toys, medical care &c. for the child alone, and food, rent/mortgage, utilities, &c. for the household) shouldn't be implemented. Or, rather, I can see why, but I disagree. Child support is largely mom support, and it is based on the idea that once you have managed to marry money, you deserve a slice of it for the rest of your life.
(Once you divorce it, that is. I don't think the husband in a married couple living together can be forced to keep a strenuous, high-paying job rather than moving to a job that he finds more congenial, but that pays less. But if he's divorced, the difficulty of getting child support lowered -- I gather it's almost impossible, though I've no first-hand experience -- can make leaving the former for the latter almost impossible. Similarly, married parents have no legal obligation to pay for their children's college education; but divorced fathers have been made to.)
"...scrunts..."
What a great word! Especially in this context:
"nasty, withered, soulless, unhappy scrunts..."
Every now and then a word comes into being which is just about as accurate a sound and description of what it defines as they come. This is one such word. Kudos!
You see Honey Boo Boo is only about six years old but she knows that should not insult your audience.
Something that escapes some people when they let slip the veil.
"Okay, try this one: It's Friday night. Why the hell are you here bellyaching about your wiener?"
7/5/13, 9:05 PM
Bwahahahahaah!
Woah! 10:03 Baron.
I'm not sure how thin a skin the recipient of that remark is, but it's a pretty great comeback!
Come on, Ann. I know you've got thinner skin than a mole rat, but give Baron points for at least having a great game. Whether it's true or not (and apparently he knows the biz, so maybe... hmm.... well), that's one hell of a riposte.
Anyone who can rip it like that I would respect. Some insults are just that respectable.
Have some Go Go Juice and fugget about it.
It was the height joke that did it Ritmo.
Hobbits are always very sensitive about their height.
Oh and of course their hairy feet that the gaffer has to shave.
Why all the Althouse hate, she's only telling you jerks what she should've told you all along, at last, at long last.
I don't know why you guys take this,...
Well, she does like to bring up her hippie side every now and then and once had a post with Meade's face superimposed on one of Bob Dylan's records covers, so maybe she's got hairy pits, too. Apparently this sort of thing is making the rounds in various towns, and I'd least expect that Madison would be exempt!
Nice post Crack.
It is good to see you.
When a reliable oral contraceptive for men is developed, women will immediately start shrieking for substances they can slip in the man's drink to render the male oral contraceptive ineffective.
Count on it.
Oh Inga. But there are thirty sides to every story.
If the repressed women of America can appreciate 50 shades of gray, then hopefully they can appreciate all those other facets too.
@Inga,
Scare tactics of men going "on strike" is a joke. There will always be plenty who will take their place, "scabs", lol.
Sure, if you are happy with the guys who aren't even good enough to qualify as beta-males.
You are watching the wrong movie Ritmo.
It's not "The Strawberry Statement."
Think "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane."
Althouse, I really am signing off but I gotta say, when you've lost Ritmo, you truly are alone.
Ritmo, we disagree 85-95% of the time, but I'm glad to see you won't let her cut it off either. You may be a liberal schmuck but first you can act like a MAN! (slap) Excuse me, wrong movie. You may be a lefty whatever but whatever else you are, you're a MAN.
Don't disappoint me now son. Stay strong ;-)
Wow. Shows you how much catching up I have to do!
Thanks for the references.
Scabs are the hard workers. Who wants a union dude, don't you conservatives hate unions, Nathan deary.
The right to choose makes men nothing but sperm donors. They should have been more careful with their seed is the argument when a woman uses it for nefarious purposes.
So if woman's rights means men are nothing but sperm donors, why not let the men who WANT to just be sperm donors be sperm donors without obligating them to be fathers too?
Com'on boys we can make 500!
Where is edutcher when you need him?
His passive aggressive flirting with the wombat should be good for 50 or 60 comments!
Nichevo and Ritmo agreeing, nope tell me it's not true.
Post a Comment