Previous post
Next post
Feminists are howling mad about a new Ohio bill that would require women to get the biological father’s approval before getting an abortion. There are exceptions in the bill for women who have been raped.
An Ohio lawmaker has re-introduced legislation that would include a father’s rights in the abortion decision-making process. Under Roe v. Wade, fathers are left out of the equation when a woman considers whether or not to have an abortion that would end the life of their child.
Rep. John Adams, a Republican from Sidney, wants to change that and the legislation he introduced today, House Bill 252, would require the biological father’s consent before an abortion can be done.
The bill would apply to any abortion and would require written consent before it can be done.
Adams told the Daily Reporter newspaper that abortion centers would “need to get consent from the biological father” before the abortion can proceed and he called the measure a “father’s right bill” to protect the interest of fathers who are given no say in the abortion process.
He also said the bill provides for criminal penalties for women seeking abortions who do not obtain consent properly.
“Providing a false biological father would be a first-degree misdemeanor the first time, which means not more than six months and jail, and a maximum $1,000 fine,” Adams said. “And on the second occasion, providing false information would be considered a fifth-degree felony.”
Adams told the newspaper that, in cases when the mother does not know the identity of the father, the abortion would be prohibited.
“There needs to be responsibility for actions,” Adams said. “As someone who is pro-life, this is also an attempt and a hope to keep the two people who have created that child together, and I suppose if you just go back to the simple beginning, there is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage.”
Adams said the bill offers exceptions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy.
This is the second time Adams has introduced the bill and he expects abortion advocates to oppose it when it comes to a committee debate and vote.
Jessica Valenti of Feministing, unsurprisingly, is furious:
File this under paternalism-gone-amok: An Ohio bill would force women to get men’s permission before obtaining an abortion. Sound familiar? That’s because Rep. John Adams from Ohio tried this same thing a couple of years ago.
… Like a note from your parents for school, except you’re an adult now (minus the rights and bodily autonomy).
… You know, because if you’re a slutty whorebag, you should be punished with a pregnancy you don’t want. No, seriously. Adams said, “[T]here is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage.”
And what about rape or incest? There are exceptions, but if this bill is the exact same one from 2007 – women would have to present a police report “proving” they had been raped before being able to procure an abortion.
So yeah, this bill is basically an all around fuck you to women.
All the bill requires is that women seeking an abortion include the biological father of the child. And this angers feminists immensely — at the time of writing this post, there were 156 comments left, mostly from pissed-off, pro-choice feminists. What’s interesting is that, not so long ago, the whiners over at Feministing were floating the idea that men be required to pay for women’s birth control. And as I said when they threw a hissy fit last time:
[T]o liberals and feminists, not being able to have free sex whenever the urge hits you constitutes a crisis, so something must immediately be done to remedy the situation.
Basically, feminists want men to be able to buy them birth control and have sex with them whenever they want it, but men should be able to have no say whatsoever in the matter, nor should they be allowed to speak up about a potential baby on the way. Just like they hyperventilate about women being informed about the procedure they’re about to undergo, it’s inconceivable and unallowable to include men in the decision.
With this bill, when it comes down to it, this is not an argument about women’s rights — it’s an argument about men’s rights. And in the name of being pro-choice, they are denying men their rights as fathers. Yes, the baby is formed inside the mother’s womb. But that baby was formed with sperm from the father. And if a man wants to keep the baby, while the woman does not, then it does not mean that her rights trump his in the name of being “pro-choice”. Honestly, would Jessica Valenti see it as a good thing that a father who wants to keep his baby and raise it is not allowed to because the mother went ahead and had the abortion anyway, without his approval? Probably. Abortion is always a good thing to feminists. They never see the tragedy and the sadness in it. If women were forced to have abortions by men, feminists would be outraged, but they don’t think anything of the situation basically being reversed.
It takes two people to make a baby, and two people need to make the decision to have an abortion. And while Jessica sneers at the thought of making a woman present a — GASP! — police report to prove that she was raped, it seems perfectly sensible to me. Because without the police report, how are you supposed to know if she was, in actuality, raped, or if she’s just trying to get around having to let the father have a say in the abortion decision?
What we have here is feminism trumping the rights of men. Feminists have come to believe that it is OK to trample men’s rights in the name of being “pro-choice”. Interesting, isn’t it, that a movement supposedly dedicated to equality, is so eagerly willing to take away the rights of half the population. Because to feminists, it isn’t really about equality anymore. It’s about keeping men (the “patriarchy”) subservient and inferior always. And this is just one more example.
I R A Darth Aggie says: I’m not sure why they’re so upset. How hard will it be to obtain a signed consent form?
Isn’t “feminist angst” kind of a double negative? When are feminists not in some kind of angst? It seems to me that they’re perpetually pissed off about something. I want to see the day when feminists can’t bitch about anything (what will they do with their lives then?). On second thought, I don’t because that will mean that men are either eliminated as a gender or have been so neutered that they’ve become drooling vegetables.
fozzy says: If men have no say over whether the baby is born or dies, then it’s only fair that they have no child support responsibilities too.
mj says: I’m not altogether thrilled with abortion. But a situation in which a man has no say at all in the matter is pretty messy. If she wants to keep the child, he’s got 18 or more years of financial obligation. If she wants it snuffed out, he gets no opinion. It’s a “womens’ health” issue.
Andy says: Are there many cases where the woman wants to abort but the man objects? Isn’t it usually the woman wanting to keep the baby, while the man who pressures to abort it?
jdc says: Love hearing the feminists lossing thier minds over this, God Forbid a father has any rights. She can abort a child without any consent, she can divorce without his consent, take his children and bankrupt him and he is supposed to sit to the sidelines and suck it up. Its about time someone introduced legislation protecting fathers. Again I hope the feminazis go into apoplectic siezures leading to coma.
CaptDMO says: And what did the Fem******ng crowd say about grown up girls (19-26)
being included in MANDATORY “children’s” family insurance extensions, at the expense of all clients of the insurance company of course?
And what did they say about mandatory “naming” of “a father”- known or not, on a certificate of live birth for welfare reimbursement collection purposes by these “autonomous” girls?
What did they have to say about the “statute of limitations” for “fathers” and husbands, to dis-prove who ACTUALLY sired the child with
irefutable DNA?
What did these emancipated, super intelligent, super independent, folk have to say about a womans “right” to refuse consent to DNA printing of “their” children for establishment of biological paternity challange purposes?
What did the nice folk at F****isting EVER have to say that wasn’t directly contradicted later on, when the unintended consequences didn’t suit the planned decor of their throne room schematics?
Too bad they use inappropriate logic to decry what is obviously
inane “legislative” thinking. Too bad Supreme Court precedent, and The Constitution, isn’t included in a Womyn’s Studies” “degree”.
VisionAri says: First of all, let me state that the only reason I could see myself having an abortion is if bearing the child would kill me.
That said…
All the bill requires is that women seeking an abortion include the biological father of the child.
No, it isn’t. It really isn’t. Paternal *notification* would be including the biological father; this bill is instead giving him ownership of the child and, by extension, the woman who is carrying it (at least for nine months).
Why does assuring the father’s rights have to involve abrogating the mother’s?
And that isn’t what this bill is about, anyway; it’s about putting the onus on women to ensure that both sexes behave themselves. In Adam’s own words:
“There needs to be responsibility for actions,” Adams said. “As someone who is pro-life, this is also an attempt and a hope to keep the two people who have created that child together, and I suppose if you just go back to the simple beginning, there is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage.”
Nothing wrong with that sentiment on paper, but it tends not to work out too well when one tries to use the law to impose one’s personal morality on everyone else. Remember Prohibition?
A few points…
nor should they be allowed to speak up about a potential baby on the way.
Cassy, it is NOT a “potential” baby – there is a human being with a heart (by about a week after implantation) and all major organs (about two weeks after implantation).
As pro-life as I am, I do have trouble with a non-spousal consent. IMHO, the better law would be for partner notification if unmarried and husband’s consent after marriage. If you want veto power over abortion, marry the lady before knocking her up.
I obviously have nothing against men’s rights, but this isn’t a men’s rights issue – because rights come with responsibilities. The right to have veto power over an abortion comes with the responsibility of marriage. As a chastity advocate, I have ZERO patience for men who cry about what their girlfriends do after sex. Be a man and marry her.
Knott Buyinit says: CaptDMO: So, are you for it or against it?
Andy: I don’t think we have a good handle on how many men would object since men have zero to say in the matter at the moment.
I would hate to be in that position, to have to tell someone who wants an abortion that she doesn’t have my ‘permission’. And you can see a pro-abortion woman’s dilemma in that case, having to bring to term something that she doesn’t believe is ‘real’. (They know, too, they all know – the women, the doctors, the abortion pimps, all of ’em – that the minute they see that crying, helpless little mass of nonviable protoplasm that they will be exposed for the hypocrites they all truly are.)
Realistically, I suppose it is a little naive to think that someone who is at peace with murdering her own baby would have a problem forging a consent document – or finding someone of like mind to forge one for her, for that matter.
Look, abortion’s not so bad, it could be something really, unimaginably reprehensible – like the president advocating infanticide or something…oh, wait!
Knott Buyinit says: Roxeanne de Luca: No offense, but you do understand that every baby’s DNA comes from both the father and the mother? I mean, no father, no baby, right? Why should the mother get to speak for both halves, as it were? What does marriage have to do with that? You don’t think unmarried fathers should have responsibility for their children? I’m all for chastity and (opposite) marriage and all that, but this is every bit a men’s rights issue, IMHO. And, just as you say, that rights come with responsibilities, starting with being a proper father to your children, as proper as you have it in your power to be – quite regardless of the condition of your paperwork with the church and state. I’m just sayin’…
Anonymous says: This bill makes no sense. I feel like this bill will be a lot of complications for people. What if a woman is with an abusive male and let’s say they break up but the last time they had sex she got pregnant. Should she risk her life to meet up with this guy so he can sign a permission slip to get her an abortion?
And say a woman has been raped? How does this police report work? Does she just report and after reporting it does she get an abortion then? Or do they have to make sure she’s not lying because that first off can take awhile and by the time they do, it can be too late to get an abortion. Or what if there’s not enough evidence to prove she’s been raped? Then does she have to find the rapist in order to get an abortion?
And for an abortion to prohibited because she doesn’t know the father a bad idea? I mean what if the woman doesn’t want the baby especially without her knowing the baby’s father. For some reason I see a back alley abortion epidemic about to happen in Ohio.
To me the bill is ridiculous. Why should a grown woman need a man to sign a permission slip for her to get an abortion? I understand why men want a say in it. I really understand especially if he wants to be a father. But that’s something a couple or two adults have to discuss with each other. It’s one of those things the law shouldn’t get involved in and if she decides to get an abortion and she doesn’t care about what you say about you, maybe you guys are a bad pair to begin with which means it probably was a good idea to not have a child to begin with.
I just don’t see any good or any point in this bill and I feel like a lot of complications and messy situations will happen with this bill.
Anonymous says: Oh and to add about the rape thing. Many women are scared to report their rape victims (as hard as it is to believe it’s true). But thank God I don’t live in Ohio.
CaptDMO says: Knott Buyinit Says:
CaptDMO: So, are you for it or against it?
For/against WHAT?
Too bad they use inappropriate logic to decry what is obviously
inane “legislative” thinking.
It’s just the level and quality of “thinking” that has consistently been presented by the nice folks that Post/comment at the site referanced at the top in Cassy’s lead, holds no value to me,/em>.
I hinted at MY, objections to the proposed bit of legislature from Rep. John Adams (ironic, no?)in my previous post, but I am NOT in a position to re-educate, point by point, the self proclaimed “grown-ups” that call themselves feminists, and their allies, for free.
Much like tutoring unmarried homo and heterosexual partners how to address many of the imagined hurdles in “unrecognized marriage” (so called) rights, I found that the loud minority subset of “gay activists” and anarchists only had interest in excusing their fabulouspublic tantrums. I have no desire to cast pearls before the swine that congregate in such mud pits as F’isting and similar ilk.
Make no mistake that, as Cassy, (and Morgan) have an inexplicable habit of “monitoring and reporting” the goings on at such sites, they too peruse sites such as this to glean ANY nuggets to sophistly “toss in”, despite adequate comprehension, simply to throw disingenuous resource consumption obstacles at critics BANNED at their “forums”.
Cousin Dave says: OK, so the bill has stirred things up, which is probably the real purpose — I’ll bet the bill’s sponsors have little expectation of it actually passing. But here’s another thought. If we are going to have abortion rights, why should the father not enjoy those rights? I’m not talking about forcing a woman to abort, but the right to a “paper abortion”, in which the father signs away all parental rights and in return is relieved of all future obligations having to do with that child. What say you, commentariat?
Suzie says: The comments there made me physically ill. The assumption that a man would never want a baby is ridiculous. My dad wanted me and lots of my male friends wanted to have babies.
Knott: ROFL. You ask me if I – a scientist – am aware that babies have DNA from both parents, then ask me to not take offence at that.
ROFLMAO. Dumbass.
Roxanne,
“I obviously have nothing against men’s rights, but this isn’t a men’s rights issue – because rights come with responsibilities.”
Well, obviously you do or you wouldn’t have made this comment. It is about men’s rights. You want one gender to get the right while denying it to another. How is that not about men’s rights? Perhaps BOTH genders need to exercise some responsibility.
“The right to have veto power over an abortion comes with the responsibility of marriage. As a chastity advocate, I have ZERO patience for men who cry about what their girlfriends do after sex. Be a man and marry her.”
Uh yeah, that’s assuming that the girl wants to get married. You’re making an awful lot of assumptions here. And if you’re so much of a chastity advocate, then maybe the girls need to close their legs a little more often as well, ok? It takes two to tango. Bear in mind that it was your vaunted feminists who ushered in the sexual revolution.
You’re a typical feminist who wants men to take all of the responsibilities while women get off scot free and can do whatever the hell they please without any consequence to their actions. Talk about dumbasses…
VisionAri says: If it takes two to tango, then why is the onus on the girl? Are boys incapable of keeping their flies zipped?
I do think that abortion should be kept legal, otherwise we will go back to “back alley” abortions and such. However, the one sided way the whole system is setup right now is horrible. I’d also love to see people who use abortion be chastised more rather then practically celebrated by many as they pretty much are. I actually think there’s a much easier solution to this, but doubt anyone really has the balls for it.
I propose someone put forward a “men’s legal abortion rights” law. Give the father the right to, at any time leading up to the moment of birth, legally separate himself from any and all responsibility to the child. Forever; no going back if you change your mind later.. make it as permanent as an abortion. The mother would have zero say in this, just as the man has no legal say in her decision to abort today.
Yes, this would be abused by a lot of assholes that would be all supportive, then get cold feet and run away at the last minute, but boy would a lot of people’s minds be swayed by the disappearance of the current absolute power the woman holds in the situation. Really, we just need to actually make there be real consequences to actions again.
Vision,
You obviously missed my whole point. The fact that it takes “TWO” not one or the other. Both sides need to stop, but Roxanne’s argument was that it was always the male who was the problem while ignoring the fact that women today can be just as lustful as the guys (i.e. hence my point about the sexual revolution). Personally, I think both genders should be a little bit more disciplined in the sexual regard.
Anonymous says: I hate when people tell adults that they should keep their legs closed more often……don’t know why it just annoys me.
If anything protection needs to be used more because who really wants to slow down on sex once they started?
Anonymous,
“I hate when people tell adults that they should keep their legs closed more often……don’t know why it just annoys me.”
Perhaps because it’s a rather simple solution? Let’s face it, it’s an excellent logical decision. Just because the “need” comes about, doesn’t mean that one necessarily needs to go about it right then and there. That’s how animals act. I’d like to think that humans, though animals, do have enough reasoning capacity to move beyond the “id” stage. It seems to me that people are getting increasingly childlike in this country. It’s “The moment’s here and I need it now!” That’s how a five-year-old acts. Maybe you need to look at why that comment annoys you and then get back to me, ok?
“If anything protection needs to be used more because who really wants to slow down on sex once they started?”
Yeah, read above and you pretty much proved my childlike comment. Spoken like a true “adult.” But here’s an answer in the form of a rhetorical question. Perhaps because “protection” doesn’t always work?
sonja says: I’m with Miguelito – if a woman can pay a bit of money to be rid of a child forever, a man should be permitted the same. That would mean no child support payments from him, no custodial rights to him.
And yes, men should have a legal say in whether or not their child is killed or not. It’s not just the woman’s child, it’s his as well. She may have more right to say yea or nay because it’s her body which is affected by it, but why should all his rights be vetoed as a result?
Of course we're appalled! says: Let me get this right…You want to legally force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, against her will? Fathers rights are all well and good, but I think you all are missing the main point. That is, the biology of human reproduction is such that women carry the unborn, not men. Due to that fact alone, women have the last word. When men have a womb, they get the last word. Until then, stop trying to take control of a woman’s body! And you don’t understand why women are upset by this?? And you don’t trust her to make decisions about HER BODY, but you want to force her to be a mother? Does that even make sense?
The real objective is Adams and “Ohio Right to Life” want to pass this law so they can take it to the Supreme Court, hoping to make abortion illegal.
Keep in mind, however, that the Supreme Court already ruled that “spousal notification” (much less spousal veto power) is unconstitutional.
Uh yeah, that’s assuming that the girl wants to get married. You’re making an awful lot of assumptions here. And if you’re so much of a chastity advocate, then maybe the girls need to close their legs a little more often as well, ok? It takes two to tango. Bear in mind that it was your vaunted feminists who ushered in the sexual revolution.
You’re a typical feminist who wants men to take all of the responsibilities while women get off scot free and can do whatever the hell they please without any consequence to their actions. Talk about dumbasses…
Ah, the usual cassyfiano.com fare – hating on anyone who dares to suggest that men aren’t perfect humans. (Cas, ever wonder why so few women comment here?)
First of all, I would strongly suggest – for your benefit, not mine – that you not make too many assumptions about me. Most people who try to make them as an ad-homimen attack are laughably wrong, and this is no exception.
I have ZERO desire to point out my educational (and career) credentials in the scientific and pro-life arenas; suffice to say, you are wrong and do owe me a profound apology.
My point was simple: if a man would like to prevent a woman’s abortion, he can marry her. If she doesn’t want to get married, he can keep his legs shut.
I say the exact same thing to women. I have no sympathy for women who cry that their sketchy boyfriends don’t want to support the baby that they made together, or women who cry that he “forced” her to get an abortion. “Don’t sleep with anyone who isn’t pro-life” is universal, not feminist or sexist, advice.
Idiot.
I would also like to point out that the feminists hate me because I dare to suggest that women, too, take responsibility for the logical consequences of sex.
So, on one side, the feminists trash me because I’m pro-life and have no sympathy for women who get pregnant; on the other, cassyfiano.com commenters think that I’m some sort of Steinem-worshipping feminist because I think that men who knock up women to whom they are not married should not go crying to the State when those women (shocker) act like they got knocked up by a man who isn’t their husband.
Perhaps, just maybe, I’m neither a rabid feminist nor a misogynist, but someone who puts partisan ideology aside and actually makes sense.
Yes, this would be abused by a lot of assholes that would be all supportive, then get cold feet and run away at the last minute, but boy would a lot of people’s minds be swayed by the disappearance of the current absolute power the woman holds in the situation. Really, we just need to actually make there be real consequences to actions again.
Brilliant! Let’s increase the abortion rate, because 1.3 million dead babies a year just isn’t enough.
Anonymous says: The comment only annoys me because adults shouldn’t be telling others not to have sex, last time I checked that’s a person’s personal business.
And I don’t know what condoms busted or slipped off on you but even though protection isn’t a hundred percent it has never failed on me. Maybe people need to learn how to use things properly.
wow says: If consent to abort is required, and is a men’s rights issue, then consent to fatherhood is also a men’s rights issue. It should be a constitutional right that a man not be forced to pay c/s support for a child he never wanted.
ztp says: Feminists want Rights without responsibility (or even accountability). They’re quite easy to figure out.
Laurie says: Anyone accusing Roxeanne de Luca of being a “typical feminist” is obviously clueless. I don’t know whether Ms. de Luca identifies as a feminist or not, but if she is, she is hardly typical given her “pro-life” beliefs, her involvement in abstinence only education, and her advocacy of laws requiring husbands (though not boyfriends) to be notified prior to a wife’s abortion.
The framing of this law as a means of giving men a choice whether to raise a child or not makes no sense. If the concern were really that men sometimes have to pay child support despite having no legal say in the abortion decision, then the law would be that husbands and boyfriends must give their permission before the pregnancy can proceed to completion. (Men would be notified at the time of the pregnancy test or pre-natal exam; women would have to abort unless given permission to proceed with the pregnancy.) Giving men the ability to force a pregnancy to term doesn’t solve the problem of forcing men to support children that they would have preffered to have seen aborted.
anon says: “And you don’t trust her to make decisions about HER BODY”
Yes. That is the point. Women were given the freedom “to make decisions about HER BODY”. The result? A 40 year Slut-and-Slaughter Fest since.
Of course we’re appalled!,
Excellent. Then as a male, I should not have to pay for the abortion either directly due to being in a relationship or in taxes. After all, it’s the woman’s decision and therefore their responsibility with all the good and bad that comes from that. Take your pick. You can’t have it both ways.
Roxanne,
“Ah, the usual cassyfiano.com fare – hating on anyone who dares to suggest that men aren’t perfect humans. (Cas, ever wonder why so few women comment here?)”
Ah yes, so I’m hating now. I don’t believe that I ever said anything about men being perfect far from it. Usually, it’s the feminists who claim that women are perfect. Talk about projection…
If women (or men for that matter) can’t handle comments, then I agree that they shouldn’t be posting. I’m sure I’d feel the same way posting on a liberal blogsite. You need to grow thicker skin.
“First of all, I would strongly suggest – for your benefit, not mine – that you not make too many assumptions about me. Most people who try to make them as an ad-homimen attack are laughably wrong, and this is no exception.”
Ah, but it’s A-OK to make assumptions about everyone else on this website. You obviously can dish it out but cannot take it. See my comments above. Just to be clear on this: I don’t take you seriously because you’re a women, but because you say some nonsensical things on here.
“I have ZERO desire to point out my educational (and career) credentials in the scientific and pro-life arenas; suffice to say, you are wrong and do owe me a profound apology.”
Yeah, and I’ll make an apology when hell freezes over. You come on here, act like we’re all a bunch of idiots and you expect us not to be offended? Please! You talk like a condescending asswipe. Perhaps you need to do some soul-searching but you seem way too narcissistic for that.
“My point was simple: if a man would like to prevent a woman’s abortion, he can marry her. If she doesn’t want to get married, he can keep his legs shut.”
So…if they both consent to sex (notice how I said both), and they don’t use protection, then it’s the man’s fault? In your scenario, the woman wins both ways! If he marries to prevent the abortion (like I said, assuming the woman wants to), she can simply divorce him later on and clean him out legally. You’re telling me that the man is always the one who initiates the sexual act, which is utter bullshit.
“So, on one side, the feminists trash me because I’m pro-life and have no sympathy for women who get pregnant; on the other, cassyfiano.com commenters think that I’m some sort of Steinem-worshipping feminist because I think that men who knock up women to whom they are not married should not go crying to the State when those women (shocker) act like they got knocked up by a man who isn’t their husband.”
Aw, someone play the violin! Maybe it’s because your opinions are all over the place and no one knows where the hell you’re coming from. The cold, hard fact is that the Sexual Revolution that occurred in the 60’s made people what they are today. You can’t ignore it. They’re going to have sex, and both genders will initiate the act. Personally, I think both genders are stupid for doing it.
Anonymous,
“The comment only annoys me because adults shouldn’t be telling others not to have sex, last time I checked that’s a person’s personal business.”
I agree. Therefore, I shouldn’t have to pay money in taxes for someone else’s mistake. If I’m paying taxes for all these abortions (or babies for that matter), then I should have a say in the process.
“And I don’t know what condoms busted or slipped off on you but even though protection isn’t a hundred percent it has never failed on me. Maybe people need to learn how to use things properly.”
I never had any problems with condoms either, but then I’ve sex with only one woman in my life, so I’m not worried about it. And it isn’t a matter of using them properly. You can do all the right things and something can do wrong. Condoms don’t completely prevent conception, merely reduce the chances. My point is that this nonsense would happen less if people used a lot of discipline and less Freudian id.
Laurie,
“Anyone accusing Roxeanne de Luca of being a “typical feminist” is obviously clueless.”
And this is based on what, exactly?
“I don’t know whether Ms. de Luca identifies as a feminist or not, but if she is, she is hardly typical given her “pro-life” beliefs, her involvement in abstinence only education, and her advocacy of laws requiring husbands (though not boyfriends) to be notified prior to a wife’s abortion.”
So…We’re obviously clueless if I identify her as a feminist, but you have no idea yourself if she is one or not. Tell you what: when you get an idea of what a feminist is, then you can come back and tell me that I’m clueless (and I’ll probably still laugh, but not as much as I am right now). Roxanne never advocated anything. She merely said that men have no right in the child-bearing process and they need to “just marry” or “keep their legs closed.” My point was that the woman also needs to keep her legs closed (something that Ms. De Luca conveniently left out). So basically, as usual according to the feminists, it’s the man’s fault.
Yeah, it would be great if we all practiced abstinence (which I do, BTW). Personally, I think it would solve a lot of problems. However, reality says otherwise, and with the sex-addled culture that we have now, I can tell you right now we’ll never get back to that, no matter how much wishing and hoping you do.
Laurie says: Mat, See Roxeane’s comments at July 22 at 11:06 p.m. in which she mentioned being “pro-life” (i.e. anti-choice), being a chastity advocate, and thinking that a law requiring women to be notify their husbands before getting an abortion would be A-OK. Each of those positions is inconsistent with feminism (except POSSIBLY the chastity advocacy, depending on how its done, but usually it’s NOT done in a particularly feminist way). She may identify herself as a feminist (I don’t know if she does or not), and perhaps she is in other ways, but there is very little that she has said on this thread that would place her in the mainstream of the feminist movement.
Laurie says: I am a feminist and I don’t really see this in terms of men being at fault versus women being at fault. It takes two to tango, but it is the woman who has to actually undergo either a pregnancy or abortion. Both of these options involve a major impact on the woman’s body, health risks, physical discomfort, and severe pain, particularly in the case of pregnancy. I believe in men’s rights, but I could never get behind a law that would allow a casual sex partner, boyfriend or husband to make a choice that has an intimate impact on a woman’s body against her will. You see, the cost of allowing men that “right” is to take a woman’s right of control of her own body away from her.
I also don’t see quite what the man’s interest is here. An emotional investment in the zygote? While certainly some men may have those feelings, I don’t think those should trump the woman’s right of control over what happens to her body.
“Mat, See Roxeane’s comments at July 22 at 11:06 p.m…”
Yes, I did see them. You point is, what? Feminism branches out all over the place. Simply identifying herself as pro-life is pretty meaningless when you take into account the other stuff she says.
“I am a feminist and I don’t really see this in terms of men being at fault versus women being at fault. It takes two to tango, but it is the woman who has to actually undergo either a pregnancy or abortion. Both of these options involve a major impact on the woman’s body, health risks, physical discomfort, and severe pain, particularly in the case of pregnancy.”
Boo-freaking hoo. That’s fine, but my point is that if you want to have sole-decision on making the call, then live with the responsibilities of that decision (i.e. money). The problem with feminism is that it often wants it both ways: the women’s power to declare anything and everything but not to pay for those decisions. I agree, it is the women’s choice, but then it is a choice. With choices come responsibilities. You can’t argue that, at least not without sacrificing a great amount of credibility.
” believe in men’s rights, but I could never get behind a law that would allow a casual sex partner, boyfriend or husband to make a choice that has an intimate impact on a woman’s body against her will. You see, the cost of allowing men that “right” is to take a woman’s right of control of her own body away from her.”
Sure, everyone’s all about men’s rights, unless it conflicts with “women’s rights.” There is no cost to the woman. She can declare an abortion, and then get public financing to pay for it (or even better, force the man to pay for it). That’s not cost, that’s horseshit.
“I also don’t see quite what the man’s interest is here. An emotional investment in the zygote? While certainly some men may have those feelings, I don’t think those should trump the woman’s right of control over what happens to her body.”
Gee, I can’t possibly understand the man’s interest in this at all. Perhaps financial, at the very least? Maybe some men want to be the fathers (I realize that it’s hard to understand with feminists, but some men actually want to be caring)? Like I said, your comment is pure awesomeness, but you should foot the bill for the abortion. That’s only “fair,” after all and we’re all for equality, right? Right?
Laurie says: Mat,
I don’t really see what the proposed law has to do with the issue of who pays for an abortion. I have a hard time believing that any law requires a man to pay for a wife or girlfriend’s abortion, and would be interested to see such a statute. Besides, there are more costs to actually having a child (not even counting the child support afterwards).
You claim there is no cost to the woman. Certainly, there may be sources of funding for the woman who can’t afford it — but the woman who can afford it must pay. You make it sound like women get off “scot free” while the man bears the entire burden of abortion. You completely ignore the fact that (a) women usually have to scrape together the money, whereas the man need only participate to the extent he chooses; and (b) the woman undergoes the actual physical burden posed by pregnancy itself — whether it is aborted or continues to term. It’s not like undergoing an abortion is a fun walk in the park.
I understand that some men want to be fathers. Heck, I would even go so far as to say that most men want to be fathers. But I don’t see how that justifies forcing a woman you knocked up to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will. (If a woman wants to be a mother does that justify stealing your semen or lying to you about being on the pill? I didn’t think so.) If you want to be father, get together with a woman who shares your goals and make babies with her. It’s not like the woman you accidentally got pregnant is your only chance to ever have kids.
Cur says: Sex wasn’t meant to be a recreational sport, people! I can’t wait until this whole charade we call society collapses.
Laurie says: Mat,
Another thing. You opined that I would always side with the woman when the woman’s rights and the man’s rights conflict. First of all, I don’t think there is a conflict. Bodily rights always come first. There may be a conflict between the woman’s right to her body and the man’s desire to be a father, but I don’t think it is a conflict of rights. Just as an example, a woman might desire her S.O. to be home more often but that doesn’t give you the right to force him to be there under lock and key. In other words, his right to control her own movements trumps her desires.
Here is another example that’s more like the abortion situation. Suppose I really want to have kids and my husband secretly has a vasectomy without telling me or asking my permission. I do not believe the law should require the woman to sign off or even be notified of the husband’s vasectomy.
Certainly, I think the husband should discuss such a decision with his wife, just as I think a woman should discuss such an abortion decision with her husband or boyfriend. But the law shouldn’t require it and the person whose body is actually involved should always have the final say.
“I don’t really see what the proposed law has to do with the issue of who pays for an abortion. I have a hard time believing that any law requires a man to pay for a wife or girlfriend’s abortion, and would be interested to see such a statute. Besides, there are more costs to actually having a child (not even counting the child support afterwards).”
Obviously, it’s not in this law. My point was regarding the feminist replies (both on this site and the others) to this law. If you take a little time to look at them, that’s exactly what the feminists want. They want to make the decision, but they don’t want the responsibility or to deal with the consequences of that decision.
There are costs either way, true (and you’re right about child-rearing costs) but my point, as said above (I believe Cassy brought this up as well) is that feminists want men to pay for the abortions.
“You claim there is no cost to the woman. Certainly, there may be sources of funding for the woman who can’t afford it — but the woman who can afford it must pay.”
And pray tell what are those “sources of funding” going to be? Perhaps, oh I don’t know, state or federal taxes for them? We live in a society that totally eschews people being responsible for their actions. If my comments seem cold, then it’s because I’m fed up listening to sob stories about people who make chronic mistakes and expect others to shoulder the burden. Why should I, who am being completely responsible, have to foot the bill for someone (or some people) who are not only being irresponsible, but consistently so?
“You make it sound like women get off “scot free” while the man bears the entire burden of abortion. You completely ignore the fact that (a) women usually have to scrape together the money, whereas the man need only participate to the extent he chooses; and (b) the woman undergoes the actual physical burden posed by pregnancy itself — whether it is aborted or continues to term. It’s not like undergoing an abortion is a fun walk in the park.”
Yes, well in the legal world, men are made (in some cases justifiably) to pay the cost. Sorry, but that’s a reality. As for the “actual physical burden,” as I said before, perhaps it would have been better for her not to have sex? It’s what I said about responsibility.
“I understand that some men want to be fathers. Heck, I would even go so far as to say that most men want to be fathers. But I don’t see how that justifies forcing a woman you knocked up to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
Ah, and as you can see, your very words speak volumes. You imply that the man knocks up the woman. So women don’t voluntarily have sex? They never, ever initiate the act? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
“(If a woman wants to be a mother does that justify stealing your semen or lying to you about being on the pill? I didn’t think so.) If you want to be father, get together with a woman who shares your goals and make babies with her.”
Yeah, well unfortunately in today’s dating world, women and men say a lot of things early on and then decide later that they don’t want to have anything to do with each other (which I believe will steadily worsen with GenXers and Millenials starting to have kids). Like I said, simply proposing marriage isn’t a real solution, however nice it may be.
“It’s not like the woman you accidentally got pregnant is your only chance to ever have kids.”
Like you said, raising kids costs a lot of money. However, I do have to question your choice of words. What about the kid that was the result of the coupling who now has several parents? Oh well, better luck next time? What is that kid’s life going to be like? But hey, it’s no big deal. As long as both sides got what they want out of the deal, that’s what’s important in the end.
“Another thing. You opined that I would always side with the woman when the woman’s rights and the man’s rights conflict. First of all, I don’t think there is a conflict. Bodily rights always come first.”
So, there’s no conflict as long as the guy doesn’t have a say. Got it. And you said you don’t side with the woman? Well, don’t be surprised if I side with the guys if that’s what the attitude is/will be.
“There may be a conflict between the woman’s right to her body and the man’s desire to be a father, but I don’t think it is a conflict of rights.”
Um, ok. Like I said before…
“Just as an example, a woman might desire her S.O. to be home more often but that doesn’t give you the right to force him to be there under lock and key. In other words, his right to control her own movements trumps her desires.”
Unless, of course, she decides to divorce him and clean him out legally (which does happen more often than people care to admit). So no, I don’t agree with this assessment at all. You’ve contradicted yourself on almost every point.
“Here is another example that’s more like the abortion situation. Suppose I really want to have kids and my husband secretly has a vasectomy without telling me or asking my permission. I do not believe the law should require the woman to sign off or even be notified of the husband’s vasectomy.”
See above about the divorce legality aspect. It’s really not that difficult for the woman.
“Certainly, I think the husband should discuss such a decision with his wife, just as I think a woman should discuss such an abortion decision with her husband or boyfriend. But the law shouldn’t require it and the person whose body is actually involved should always have the final say.”
Well, if you say that a woman has “bodily rights,” then what point is there to have such a discussion? The result has already been determined beforehand and is therefore pointless. The rest is a song and dance. You know, for the feminists who claim that they have no issue with men’s rights, they have a strange way of explaining this.
Laurie says: Hi Mat.
1) PAYING FOR ABORTION. Again, I am not aware of laws or precedents requiring men to pay for abortions of wives or girlfriends. My general feeling is that the law shouldn’t get involved.
The public dole is a different issue. It sounds like argument is that we shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s irresponsibility. Under that theory, you probably oppose subsidized treatments and other support for smokers who have long cancer, overeaters who suffer from obesity-related illnesses, quadriplegics who injured themselves through drunk driving, or women who give birth to children they can’t afford. To me, that’s not so much a male-v.-femal issue.
It really depends on whether you truly are comfortable seeing people in these situations dying in the streets. I am open to public support (depending on the details of the plan) because, regardless of how frustrating someone else’s mistakes can be, I can’t imagine just living in a society where people are just left to die or starve. I also recognize that most of us DO make mistakes. I know very few people with perfect health habits and very few people whose sexual choices have been perfectly responsible 100% of the time.
2) MEN KNOCKING WOMEN UP: I agree with you 100% that it takes two to tango in most cases. I even used that phrase in a prior comment. I will even note that most feminists today take enormous issue with conservatives who claim that women who have sex outside of wedlock are “used” or “taken advantage of.” Third-wave feminists generally recognize that women choose to have sex because they want to, not because they are innocent victims of men.
I used the phrase “knocked up” in the context of referring to what rights (if any) the man should expect to have by virtue of HIS role in conceiving the child. In other words, I don’t think that having sex with a woman should give you rights over her body.
3) FINDING SOMEONE TO HAVE BABIES WITH: I suggested that your desire to be a father should not trump the woman’s desire to have an abortion in part because you will have plenty of opportunities to be a father. (Indeed, you are physically capable of having many more children than a woman can in her lifetime! Congratulations!)
You commented in response: “Yeah, well unfortunately in today’s dating world, women and men say a lot of things early on and then decide later that they don’t want to have anything to do with each other (which I believe will steadily worsen with GenXers and Millenials starting to have kids). Like I said, simply proposing marriage isn’t a real solution, however nice it may be.”
Well, yes, my solution of pairing up with someone who shares your desire to raise a family is not a guarantee. I certainly know some lonelyhearts out there pining away for a man or woman to date or marry. Some people date and find they are not compatible. Some people are shy and have trouble finding anyone to date. Some people have off-putting looks or bad personalities. But MOST people manage to find someone they can settle down with.
Besides, even if the man in a particular situation is someone who has trouble meeting or getting along with women, I fail to see how it is the woman’s responsibility to provide him with his one chance to have a child just because their coupling inadvertently resulted in conception. It seems he might be a sad case, but that’s his problem, not hers.
4) BODILY RIGHTS VERSUS HIS DESIRE: So you are saying I am begging the question by placing an individual’s bodily rights over the desires of that person’s sexual partner to have a child. (Note that I put this in gender neutral terms, because as I said, I support a man’s right to have a secret vasectomy withouth is wife’s knowledge.) Perhaps so. That is where I draw the line in the sand — because ultimately the person whose body is most affected is the one most burdened by the decision. This is also consistent with general principles in our society. We are not allowed to use other people’s bodies for our own ends. I can’t force you to give me a kidney even if I am dying. Even if you are my dad and you brought me into this world.
5) MARRIED MEN ARE HELPLESS? You seem to imply that married men are helpless because if they do anything that might displease their wife, she will leave and take him for all he is worth. (Of course, if true, that might be one reason for keeping the vasectomy a secret! Which is what I am advocating have the right to do! Under the law wives don’t or shouldn’t have the right to know about it!)
Besides, while I am sure you will protest otherwise, I refuse to believe that married men are skulking around afraid to do anything that will offend their wives for fear that they will be taken for all they are worth. That hasn’t been my observation of married men. In any case, the solution to that is to marry someone with her own career and income. Then she won’t have a basis to demand alimony.
Laurie,
“1) PAYING FOR ABORTION”
It does happen and will continue to happen especially with young feminist women moving into the legal profession (the majority of people in law school are female). Whether you feel that the law should get involved or not is irrelevant. The law is getting involved and will continue to wind its tentacles into this matter in the future.
Yes, I do oppose for all of the above. We’re not talking about people down on their luck and just making one bad decision, we’re talking about people who make the same totally wrong decision again & again & again & again & again & again. Sorry, but as bad as that sounds, people need to take responsibility. The other side of the coin is that we create a social welfare state in which no one is responsible for their actions (that’ll mean overwhelming governmental oversight). Besides, when did we get to the point where universal health care is a right? It wasn’t a problem before, why is it now? As for the dying on the streets remark, it is possible that some might (though not in the numbers you think), but I think it would also force people to take a look at their lives and make changes. All of the examples you mentioned were due to choice. Part of choice means you have to own up to your decisions. That’s part of being an adult. Like I said in previous posts, we’re becoming a nation of children.
“2) MEN KNOCKING WOMEN UP:”
If it were just sex, I would agree, but that goes out the window when a baby is formed. At that point, responsibility should ensue. The fact that feminists eschew responsibility and consequences following the act speak volumes. I personally don’t think that a society can long endure that eats its own young. If you think otherwise, by all means continue down that path. More and more men are just deciding not to put up with that nonsense. That’s fine, but unfortunately, we’re not breeding as fast as other cultures. The muslims are already outbreeding the West and will demographically have Europe by the end of the century. That is a demographical fact. And I shudder to think about the consequences of that. So by all means, both genders can keep up this nonsense. We’ll all lose in the end.
“I suggested that your desire to be a father should not trump the woman’s desire to have an abortion in part because you will have plenty of opportunities to be a father. (Indeed, you are physically capable of having many more children than a woman can in her lifetime! Congratulations!)”
But maybe I want to have a kid then. It also depends on how old the guy is. If he’s 20, you’re right. But if he’s 40, he’ll most likely be shooting blanks before long and so much for having kids. Like I said, it’s much more complicated than feminists project.
“Well, yes, my solution of pairing up with someone who shares your desire to raise a family is not a guarantee. I certainly know some lonelyhearts out there pining away for a man or woman to date or marry. Some people date and find they are not compatible. Some people are shy and have trouble finding anyone to date. Some people have off-putting looks or bad personalities. But MOST people manage to find someone they can settle down with.”
Well, if you believe that a 50% divorce rate is “most,” go for it. Also, bear in mind that most of the long-term marriages are from Boomers (for obvious reasons). The jury is still out whether the “ME ME ME” narcissism of the GenXers and Millenials (and hell the ones coming up after them) will follow that pattern. My guess is that the divorce rates will skyrocket in the next couple of decades.
“Besides, even if the man in a particular situation is someone who has trouble meeting or getting along with women, I fail to see how it is the woman’s responsibility to provide him with his one chance to have a child just because their coupling inadvertently resulted in conception. It seems he might be a sad case, but that’s his problem, not hers.”
Well, I believe that it’s both gender’s resonsibility, but as a typical feminist you shunt that over to the male, so I’m not really all that surprised by that remark. I never said that a man has the right to a child in a relationship without kids, BTW, nor did I ever imply it. Like I said before, its irresponsible attitudes like that which are causing men to say “to hell with this.” And yes, it is happening. It makes no difference to me.
“So you are saying I am begging the question by placing an individual’s bodily rights over the desires of that person’s sexual partner to have a child. (Note that I put this in gender neutral terms, because as I said, I support a man’s right to have a secret vasectomy withouth is wife’s knowledge.) Perhaps so.”
I believe that when two people decide to have sex, then there is a chance of conception. I also believe that both of them should make a decision (abortion or life, this issue isn’t a big one for me…my advance apologies to other conservatives listening in). But a decision has to be made by BOTH. As for the vasectomy example, any man who pulls something like that deserves a divorce, because that violates the trust aspect. Without trust, what the hell is the point of getting married in the first place???!!!
“That is where I draw the line in the sand — because ultimately the person whose body is most affected is the one most burdened by the decision.”
Well, you can draw a line in the sand if you want, but don’t be surprised when you get resistance. Whether or not the burden is on the woman, the child still carries attributes of the male, or does that not matter at all?
“This is also consistent with general principles in our society. We are not allowed to use other people’s bodies for our own ends. I can’t force you to give me a kidney even if I am dying. Even if you are my dad and you brought me into this world.”
Well, duh. A kidney has my own DNA. It’s no one else’s (unlike a baby being formed). It’s not a mix of two people in a relationship! That’s a silly example. You’re telling me a baby can be conceived entirely by the female (note: this does not include artificial insemination, which is an entirely different argument)? Of course not. An organ is part of you. You don’t birth your kidney, do you?
“Besides, while I am sure you will protest otherwise, I refuse to believe that married men are skulking around afraid to do anything that will offend their wives for fear that they will be taken for all they are worth. That hasn’t been my observation of married men. In any case, the solution to that is to marry someone with her own career and income. Then she won’t have a basis to demand alimony.”
No, men don’t skulk around. More often, it hits them like a bolt out of the blue. The legal system rewards women today much more than men. It often grants them custody of the child (with little regard as to whether she is a good parent or not), She gets at least half of his money, and he’s stuck paying alimony which often breaks him. It doesn’t matter whether she has a career or not. You honestly believe a career and income makes much difference? Please! Look at divorce courts and you see all different income levels going through with the same result. Cripes, why do you think most wealthy men insist on pre-nups? Your thoughts on the law are naive at best.
Laurie says: Hi Mat,
Heh. I’ll probably have to let you have the last word on a lot of this since I have to run around a bit today. (Transforming the legal profession to favor women over men is a lot of work, believe it or not. Of course that is kind of hard to do when 98% of my clients are men or corporations, but I do my best.)
I will respond to just a couple of points:
1) I agree that an embryo is not conceived entirely by the female. It contains half of the man’s DNA. But the work of actually gestating it into a baby and giving birth to is 100% hers. The impact is 100% on her body, not his. The health risks and the pain and the discomfort are 100% hers. Until there is a baby (i.e. after the woman does all the physical work of producing the baby), the man’s only contribution to the baby’s existence and well-being is a few minutes having sex.
2) I SAID: “Besides, even if the man in a particular situation is someone who has trouble meeting or getting along with women, I fail to see how it is the woman’s responsibility to provide him with his one chance to have a child just because their coupling inadvertently resulted in conception. It seems he might be a sad case, but that’s his problem, not hers.”
YOU SAID: “Well, I believe that it’s both gender’s resonsibility, but as a typical feminist you shunt that over to the male, so I’m not really all that surprised by that remark. I never said that a man has the right to a child in a relationship without kids, BTW, nor did I ever imply it. Like I said before, its irresponsible attitudes like that which are causing men to say “to hell with this.” And yes, it is happening. It makes no difference to me.”
But it sounds like you are saying if the pregnancy results and the man wants to be a father, it is the woman’s responsibility to comply regardless of what she wants. I don’t see how disagreeing with that means shunting responsibility on the man.
I don’t know what you mean when you say that men are saying, “To hell with this.” Are you implying that men will not marry or stay in relationships with women unless they can control the woman’s decision whether to have an abortion? It seems to me if a couple disagrees so fundamentally on an issue like that, it is probably best if they don’t stay together.
3) DIVORCE LAWS are a whole different issue. You asked me if a woman’s career and income make a difference to how the divorce laws work. I can guarantee you that they do. There is no way on God’s green earth that any judge would order my husband to pay alimony to me because I make twice what he makes. The judge couldn’t do it if he wanted to, because the law would forbid it. The laws are gender neutral. I might even have to pay alimony to my husband depending on his earning capacity, how long we have been married, and the degree to which he sacrificed his earning capacity in order to support our home.
—
“But it sounds like you are saying if the pregnancy results and the man wants to be a father, it is the woman’s responsibility to comply regardless of what she wants. I don’t see how disagreeing with that means shunting responsibility on the man.”
Not at all. My point was that two people can just have sex and there’s no responsibility taken. If the man wants to be the father, tough shit. End of story. Not much room for “discussion,” is there? So yes, my point about shunting responsibility to the male is quite valid (as much as you want to twist it otherwise). The female has all of the benefits of the act, but none of the responsibility (hell, she can even claim rape if she really wants to). For a lawyer (which I’m assuming you are), you seem to be blissfully unaware of this, but then when has law ever went hand in hand with responsibility or common sense (note: check the current bills going through Congress for further proof)?
“I don’t know what you mean when you say that men are saying, “To hell with this.” Are you implying that men will not marry or stay in relationships with women unless they can control the woman’s decision whether to have an abortion? It seems to me if a couple disagrees so fundamentally on an issue like that, it is probably best if they don’t stay together.”
I would agree, but then perhaps both of them should have controlled their hormones and not go through the act to begin with. My ex-girlfriend and I essentially broke up over this. She wanted kids, I didn’t. It didn’t work out. Life goes on. But what if the pair want to work it out? Your implication is that the guy has no say whatsoever (in which case I’d strongly advise him to run, fast!). I think they should at least discuss it. Most likely, they’d agree anyway. Again, it’s a responsibility thing. I don’t really understand why this is so difficult to understand.
“DIVORCE LAWS are a whole different issue. You asked me if a woman’s career and income make a difference to how the divorce laws work. I can guarantee you that they do. There is no way on God’s green earth that any judge would order my husband to pay alimony to me because I make twice what he makes. The judge couldn’t do it if he wanted to, because the law would forbid it. The laws are gender neutral. I might even have to pay alimony to my husband depending on his earning capacity, how long we have been married, and the degree to which he sacrificed his earning capacity in order to support our home.”
Ah, I was referring to equal income. In your case, yes, that’s probably true (though maybe not…much will depend on how many radical feminists get through law school). But for people with equal income? No way. The guy definitely gets hosed. You can say what you want, but as Galileo said “Eppur si muove.”
It’s not the moderate feminists who are controlling these issues anyway (as much as they like to think they are). The radicals are the ones who have had and will have a much greater impact in the legal realm (and the ones I carefully watch). I know my share of lawyers and people going through law school and some of the stuff I hear bothers me greatly (which is why I would never get involved in a relationship ever again…way too much risk). But continue to keep your head buried in the sand.
Laurie,
I think you missed the part where, in Mat’s world, calling a woman a “typical feminist” is a brilliant retort, a smack down, and an end to the discussion.
Mat – get a little intellectual honesty. I made several comments about women’s responsibility as well, which you choose to ignore because a) it’s inconvenient for your ideology (supra), and b) would require a bit of critical thinking on your part.
Suck it up and be a man, not some sniveling sorry excuse for one.
“Laurie,
I think you missed the part where, in Mat’s world, calling a woman a “typical feminist” is a brilliant retort, a smack down, and an end to the discussion.”
More or less. But then feminists think the same way regarding men, so it all evens out, no?
“Mat – get a little intellectual honesty. I made several comments about women’s responsibility as well, which you choose to ignore because a) it’s inconvenient for your ideology (supra), and b) would require a bit of critical thinking on your part.”
Yes, I noticed that you discussed women’s responsibility, but only after I called you out on it. As for ideology, you’re the one spewing feminist nonsense, so let’s talk about intellectual honesty. As far as critical thinking, I do that quite well, thanks.
“Suck it up and be a man, not some sniveling sorry excuse for one.”
Aw, isn’t that adorable? And pray tell, what constitutes a “man” to a feminist? Like I said, you come in here, insult everyone because they don’t hold your narrow beliefs and then you demand apologies when someone has the gall to answer back to you. Tell you what, if you skip the unfettered arrogance that you typically bring to this site, you probably wouldn’t have half the problems.
50 Comments