Muzzling Men
Via Fathers and Families rather outrageous legislation criminalizing men's relationship choices. Glenn Sacks writes:
Fathers and Families has joined with the ACLU of Michigan in opposing the Michigan's Coercive Abortion Prevention Act (CAPA). It is one thing to criminalize violence or threats of violence designed to coerce a woman into having an abortion. It is quite another to criminalize men's personal relationship choices, as CAPA does. Fathers and Families does not take a position on abortion, but we do oppose CAPA.
There's a link at Sacks' site to email their letter to relevant committee members. From an op-ed by Sacks:
HB 5882 [CAPA] actually makes it a crime for a man to "change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other, to "file or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife, or to "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman who he has been supporting, if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy.This violates men's rights. The U.S. constitution's protected liberty interests safeguard privacy in areas such as contraception, marriage, procreation, child rearing and sexual conduct between consenting adults. Do Michigan legislators believe these protections don't also cover the basic personal choices HB 5882 proscribes?...
The bill is also laden with unfair presumptions of male guilt. There are many legitimate reasons why a man might be unhappy over his wife or girlfriend's pregnancy. He may leave because he doubts that the child she is carrying is his. He may want her to terminate a pregnancy because he felt he was deceived into getting her pregnant, and doesn't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support. He may leave because she blames him for not being a good enough provider, or lashes out at him during pregnancy-related mood swings. None of these behaviors are particularly chivalrous, but they are certainly understandable.
What's next? Soon they'll pass the anti-Newt law where a man can't divorce their cancer stricken wife.
Andrew Hall at December 13, 2011 2:35 AM
And, Andrew, you will be forced to do something when yours has the flu. By law.
Laws are always for other people, aren't they?
-----
This is just a predictable expansion of power, working on the excuse that in the absence of decent behavior, the State is the only answer.
Radwaste at December 13, 2011 2:44 AM
This is ridiculous. Threatening to leave has been a staple manipulation of romance since it began. Will they penalize women who threaten to leave or withold sex in an attempt to get a man to marry her? (of course not).
I agree with many of the guys here who have long maintained that this infantizes women. We're weak and special, so easily manipulated that we can't decide on our own productive or relationship choices. The state must come in and protect us from a guy threatening to leave us while pregnant? Maybe it should be good riddance! Maybe it'll be a wonderful development.
LS at December 13, 2011 5:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2852409">comment from LSLS is absolutely right. And let's note that if you're a woman living in this modern age, you have a great deal of control over whether you get pregnant or not.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2011 6:30 AM
Many problems with this bill.
I'm just picturing a guy whose gf says, "I'm pregnant and it's not yours." With this law he can't break up with her, if she suggests that at some point he mentioned abortion. That will be a fun 9 months.
To put it in true equality mode how about adding in the laughable. For the ladies, if your bf or husband gets someone else pregnant, you legally can't throw him out, not abstain from sex with him, divorce him, etc, if at anypoint, it could be construed that, you might want the other woman to have an abortion.
Joe J at December 13, 2011 7:46 AM
Let me get this straight.
For feminists, it seems that manipulation or coercion constitute domestic violence/assault.
It is a crime for him to try to manipulate her by threatening to leave, but, if he engages in domestic violence, she can use VAWA to get a restraining order to have him removed from the house.
So, if he tries to leave and she gets a restraining order against him to keep him out, is she an accessory to the crime?
-Jut
JutGory at December 13, 2011 7:58 AM
Notice that there's no stipulation that the man is actually the father of the child. And the last proscription, regarding financial support, doesn't even require that they have a significant relationship with the woman.
We're weak and special, so easily manipulated that we can't decide on our own productive or relationship choices.
It's apparent that that is how many women perceive themselves. Maybe it's hardwired.
I suspect that this section was created to 'balance' the legislation - i.e. because women are burdened, men should be burdened too. That's how women think.
noel at December 13, 2011 8:01 AM
Good thing I don't live there...oh shit, I do! This state has huge problems and this is what they are doing in Lansing? Meanwhile, our Attorney General is rounding up the men who can no longer afford to pay inflated child support and throwing them in jail until they pay up. Debtors prison is alive and well in Michigan, now they can't wait to make even more men into criminals.
Gary G at December 13, 2011 8:17 AM
I know a few women who were left by their significant others while pregnant, in the second and third trimesters--in one sad case as she went into labor. These were, the women thought, stable relationships.
I don't think this bit of legislation is the answer, but let's not pretend men don't walk away.
deathbysnoosnoo at December 13, 2011 8:45 AM
dunno abut Mich. but in Colo. you cannot divorce a pregnant woman. I had anxiety the whole time I was divorcing, that my ex would find someone to get knocked up with, and stop the proceeding.
Other than that, this is an ugly piece of legislation, that won't fix the intended problem but will cause other problems...
and maybe that's the design.
the lesson? women can make you life hard so don't get too close. just love 'em and leave 'em, don't try relationships, you'll just lose.
Is that the message?
Is someone trying to poison the well?
SwissArmyD at December 13, 2011 8:46 AM
>> but in Colo. you cannot divorce a pregnant woman.
Seriously???
I'm ok with debtor's prisons for parents who don't support their biological children. Participate in the creation of life, I expect you to at a minimum to provide for the upbringing of that life until it can provide for itself in our society. AT last count, my adopted boy has two brothers and maybe a sister, none of whom are supported by anyone but the state.
Eric at December 13, 2011 9:41 AM
As much as I want to blame the feminists for this one, I think it's due to the chivalrous anti-abortion lobby that rewards women for using children as hostages and would rather see unwed motherhood numbers swell than risk a few abortions. (Not that this guarantees that abortion rates would drop in the short or long run.)
Strangely enough, there was opposition from the same ACLU crowd a few years ago over legislation that made men who attacked pregnant women and their fetus dying into a murder charge. After the smoke cleared, the feminists quietly welcomed it by saying that the fetus was the woman's property and when she wanted it, it was a baby but when she didn't, then it was a mere blob of cells. In other words, in the long run, the ACLU needn't worry. This hyper-chivalrous society will not hold women accountable and no need to worry about women being forced with live with boyfriends who cheated on her and got another woman pregnant. It's like DV where women are rarely if ever arrested for attacking men.
Finally, the victims of this law will probably be minority men in Michigan who are being thrown into jail for failure to pay "child" support. This is just another way to swell the prisons with them.
PK at December 13, 2011 9:49 AM
"I'm ok with debtor's prisons for parents who don't support their biological children. Participate in the creation of life, I expect you to at a minimum to provide for the upbringing of that life until it can provide for itself in our society."
1/2 of such parents don't get debtor's prison. Welfare mothers get checks and if they don't want to keep the kid, they can always abandon it at the "safe haven", no questions asked AND, get this, pick it up later if they like.
The problem with the paradigm of the welfare state paid for by deadbeat dad collections is that it requires these men to be stupid enough to knock these women up but smart enough to earn a lot of money to make the women and society happy. So it's not uncommon for these fathers to have more than a dozen children from different women and then go to jail and spend another $50K a year of taxpayer money. Yep, this is so much better than the 1950's!
PK at December 13, 2011 9:58 AM
"I don't think this bit of legislation is the answer, but let's not pretend men don't walk away."
Nobody is pretending they don't, but how this law reads, he can't even if she might want him to. That's the absurd thing! The way I read it, this was meant to protect pregnant women from emotional manipulation - being coerced into an abortion with threats - which means they presume the guy is an abusive jerk.
So, why is the state mandating that she stay with an abusive partner? Ironically, the law traps the woman with this guy. She'll need a restraining order to get him out of her life, which, as Jut points out, would totally contradict the other law.
Anyone responsible for this law should be removed from office. They're too stupid to be in public service.
LS at December 13, 2011 10:37 AM
This law is beyond stupid. It makes me ill to see (TX) on that list and I'll be writing them. However;
"He may want her to terminate a pregnancy because he felt he was deceived into getting her pregnant, and doesn't want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support."
Unless he was drugged, he knew he was 1) having sex and 2) sex can lead to babies even when you both don't want it to. So wah wah wah on that whine.
momof4 at December 13, 2011 11:26 AM
Whoops, the list of sponsors wasn't on this post. Sorry.
momof4 at December 13, 2011 11:27 AM
Well, Golly, there seems to be some sort of rhetorical failure happening here. Where are all of Amy's commenters who stand up to complain when courts allow unmarried mothers to give their babies to competent married couples?
> So wah wah wah on that whine.
That's a reprehensible blog comment, a real atrocity.
Crid at December 13, 2011 11:30 AM
"I'm ok with debtor's prisons for parents who don't support their biological children. Participate in the creation of life, I expect you to at a minimum to provide for the upbringing of that life until it can provide for itself in our society."
Eric, I have no problem jailing those who REFUSE to support their children. But jailing people for having little our no income in a state that has officially 10.8% unemployment, but really has a rate double that or more doesn't help anyone, especially the children. So you have little or no income and since child support its based on your ability to pay, you can get relief from the Court, right? Of course not. The Courts repeatedly refuse to adjust already inflated child support rates. The system is broken but there is no political will to fix it - after all, would you vote for a candidate that wanted fairness for men? Their opponents would have a field day, calling them out for being against mothers and children and FOR deadbeats.
Gary G at December 13, 2011 11:44 AM
As with sending anyone to prison, there has to be a trial where the facts are considered. A guy keeps producing babies while not being able or unwilling to support them- take him off the street and make him economically productive, even if it is breaking rocks with a sledge hammer.
There are cycles in our society that continue ad infinitum becuase we as a society don't have the will to enforce minimum rules of conduct. Gather a group of teenage boys in a classroom every few months, explain that they will be held financially accountable for the next 18 years of their lives and begin to enforce it, see what happens to the out of wedlock birth rates.
And I'm in no way against premarital or teenage sex- it just needs to be done responsibly, which isn't an impossible task.
Yeah I know, this is all a pipe-dream.
Eric at December 13, 2011 12:39 PM
Eric, those debtor's prisons are a threat because there is NOTHING that prevents the court from awarding more to your ex than you will ever make.
read the fathers and families site, if you want horror stories.
here's a excerpt from a divorce site;
"For example, those living in the state of Florida cannot file for divorce while the wife is pregnant whereas in Texas, you can file for divorce if you are pregnant, but the divorce cannot be finalized until the child is born. This law is in place so as to assure child support and child custody issues are handled appropriately. In other states such as Ohio, Arkansas, Missouri and Arizona, a divorce will not be granted if the woman is pregnant."
Every state is different. In Colorado, you can FILE, but they won't do anything until the kid is born, and they assume it's yours even if you can prove otherwise.
The problem with all such laws is that they punish the conscientious while never touching those that game the system. This is regardless of gender.
Does anyone think this will help women?
It's a CF all the way round.
SwissArmyD at December 13, 2011 12:53 PM
Gather a group of teenage boys in a classroom every few months, explain that they will be held financially accountable for the next 18 years of their lives and begin to enforce it, see what happens to the out of wedlock birth rates.
My guess? No change.
Now, design some unpleasant consequences for the other halves of the equation and you might get somewhere.
But of course, that would never fly.
dee nile at December 13, 2011 1:13 PM
The anti-abortion lobby wants to force women through pregnancy and childbirth, whether she wants to or not, whether she has the means to care for the child or not.
And you're shocked -- shocked! -- that they'd also want to force men to do something they don't want to do to save a fetus?
Well now.
ST at December 13, 2011 1:29 PM
HB5882 does no such thing. It prevents the use of violence to force the termination of the pregnancy. It add a misdemeanor charge and a fine, given the effects of a DV charge it's minor WRT other consequences. This bill has been proposed several times and either failed in the senate or died in committee. The current version of HB5882 is an appropriations bill.
He's referring to HB 4799. This is far more invasive then just putting the man she's with on the hook. It will also cover parents, employers, university etc. This is punishable by a fine of 5000 (which goes to the state). It does have a caveat that
"THAT THE PERSON HAS A LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE OR REDUCE THAT SUPPORT TO A LEVEL BELOW
HIS OR HER LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY."
vlad at December 13, 2011 2:31 PM
Unless he was drugged, he knew he was 1) having sex and 2) sex can lead to babies even when you both don't want it to. So wah wah wah on that whine.
Posted by: momof4
Your forgetting the handful of documented cases wherein women retreived condoms from the trash to impregnate themselves
lujlp at December 13, 2011 2:32 PM
As with sending anyone to prison, there has to be a trial where the facts are considered.
Eric?, You ever hear of contempt of court?
lujlp at December 13, 2011 2:34 PM
"Now, design some unpleasant consequences for the other halves of the equation and you might get somewhere." History shows that this will just lead to dead or abandoned babies. By babies I mean born fully formed and left to die. Russia has this in droves during the thaw. China when the child is a girl. Money alone will only make this problem worse which is what we have here. Billions are spent and the result are huge welfare roles not improved outcomes.
vlad at December 13, 2011 2:43 PM
>> Your forgetting the handful of documented cases wherein women retreived condoms from the trash to impregnate themselves.
True, true. So teach the boys to wear condoms with spermacide, or it's their financial ass in the sling for 18 years. This is one of those few times where the cliche "think of the children" is apropos. Or "think of the burden on society raising all your kids".
>> Eric?, You ever hear of contempt of court?
I watch Law and Order like the next guy. What's your point? A guy can't prove or disprove the kid is his through DNA? So she didn't really swallow and tricked you- too damn bad. There's a baby with your DNA now. Quit splooging with women you can't trust.
(And I know there are tweaks that need to be added to the judicial process regarding timing and such...)
Eric at December 13, 2011 4:06 PM
The whole reason marriage exists is to formalize the promise that a man will be there to raise and support his children for as long as they need him.
Merely having sex does NOT constitute such a promise, because it is normally not for that purpose.
Therefore, I have no respect for women who have sex with a guy -- often by lying to him that they're using birth control -- and then try to have the law force those obligations on him afterward. Nope. The time to ask that of a man is before there is a pregnancy. Otherwise you deserve to be on your own. And if you did this as a means to get a free meal ticket, the state should take the child away from you.
The welfare state is to blame for providing both the incentive and the means for millions of dishonest women to commit this kind of enslavement.
And if it ever happens to me, I'll go to jail and stay there before I give the golddigger a penny.
John David Galt at December 13, 2011 4:45 PM
"I watch Law and Order like the next guy. What's your point?"
The point is that there is no trial for contempt of court. The judge pronounces you guilty and that's that. There is no guarantee of due process.
"A guy can't prove or disprove the kid is his through DNA?"
Legally, in most cases, no he can't. In most states, if you are married to a woman, you are the legal father of any child she births, even if you've had a vasectomy. Unmarried fathers have an extremely small window to contest paternity, and states have a huge array of tricks they use to make sure the man doesn't find out in time.
Cousin Dave at December 13, 2011 6:17 PM
Determined by whom? Using what criteria?
COnan the Grammarian at December 13, 2011 6:18 PM
"As with sending anyone to prison, there has to be a trial where the facts are considered."
That's simply not true. A judge can send you to jail for 'contempt of court' without any trial, and without a lawyer being provided to you. A man who can't pay outstanding child support debt is in contempt; and that debt can't be retroactively reduced or forgiven.
It takes 6 to 8 months just to get in front of a family court judge to request a downward modification of child support which is rarely granted on the first request. Which means if a man loses his job tomorrow, realistically he's looking at about at least 1 year before his child support obligation is reduced. In the mean time non-dischargeable child support debt keeps piling up, and it will eventually land him in jail if he can't find a way to pay it all off. That's also assuming he can somehow find a lawyer who will either work for free, or bill at a greatly reduced rate. Unless you live in a big city that has a legal aid office you're screwed.
You might want to ask yourself if throwing an otherwise law abiding father in jail for the crime of suffering a significant drop in income during the worst economic downturn since the great depression is an efficient use of law enforcement resources.
Even more alarming bill collectors have caught onto this scam, and started using a similar tactics. If someone owes money, say someone who was uninsured and happened to have a medical emergency; the collections agencies have started to sue the "deadbeats" who don't pay, they don't serve the plantiffs notice of the lawsuit while lying to the judge saying that they did, then obtain a default judgement. When the debtor doesn't pay the judge rules that they are in contempt of court. The debtor ends up getting thrown in the slammer, and has to raise bail to get out. The judge takes the bail and hands it to the collection agency to help pay off their debt.
Source
'First they came for the poor fathers, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a poor father...'
Mike Hunter at December 13, 2011 6:47 PM
"sex can lead to babies even when you both don't want it to."
I refer to this as the "babies pop out of men's penis" theory. When a woman wants a baby, we're all told that the man is 1/2 responsible (which really means he's the only one on the hook for paying because she can go on welfare) unless she doesn't want the child in which case she can abort or abandon the baby at a firestation.
Don't expect legislation to solve this problem since welfare mothers can always find a man to impregnate them even if perhaps just paying a sperm bank or finding an anonymous man at a bar to do the deed.
PK at December 13, 2011 7:04 PM
The whole reason marriage exists is to formalize the promise that a man will be there to raise and support his children for as long as they need him.
Merely having sex does NOT constitute such a promise, because it is normally not for that purpose.
Therefore, I have no respect for women who have sex with a guy -- often by lying to him that they're using birth control -- and then try to have the law force those obligations on him afterward. Nope. The time to ask that of a man is before there is a pregnancy. Otherwise you deserve to be on your own. And if you did this as a means to get a free meal ticket, the state should take the child away from you.
This. Either allow single men to unilaterally abandon their parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has already occurred; just like single women can currently do now. Or go back to the model in which a man is only responsible for children he has sired if the couple is married.
Mike Hunter at December 13, 2011 7:09 PM
ST claims: "The anti-abortion lobby wants to force women through pregnancy and childbirth, whether she wants to or not, whether she has the means to care for the child or not.And you're shocked -- shocked! -- that they'd also want to force men to do something they don't want to do to save a fetus?"
The anti-abortion lobby usually supports women putting children up for adoption or even abandonment although, of course, that attitude would probably change if abortion was made illegal and they would probably cut back on the welfare benefits if they didn't feel a need to bribe women to not get an abortion.
One of the interesting things about living in the post feminist era is that women are obsessed with having children rather than abortion rights as the supply of 1950's breadwinning men dries up. In the old days, like 20 years ago, women actually married men and raised families with them and could get "child" support and even alimony in a divorce. Now, they're reduced to punching holes in condoms to try to not become a victim of darwinism...
PK at December 13, 2011 7:11 PM
Momof4 supports this law because obviously someone as ignorant and lazy as she is has to trap a man in order to get him to stay around! I wonder if she'll pollute the world even more by squeezing out yet another screaming meatsack to claim more welfare, and try and trap her next victim!?
dadof1 at December 13, 2011 7:15 PM
"sex can lead to babies even when you both don't want it to."
No. Sex can lead to babies even if the man doesn't want it to. The woman can always get an abortion, regardless of circumstances.
Mike Hunter at December 13, 2011 9:03 PM
"Where are all of Amy's commenters who stand up to complain when courts allow unmarried mothers to give their babies to competent married couples?"
Who did this? I missed it.
Radwaste at December 14, 2011 4:09 AM
Sigh. Gee, how did I guess when I read the headline that it was Michigan again.
Do these morons not realize that they are making a bad situation worse? What do you think is gonna happen once the general public learns the new rules? Men will step up? Yeah sure. After getting out of jail for kicking out their cheating wife/girlfriend they'll at best swear to never live with a woman again. At worst, they'll commit violence because, hey they're going to jail anyway for daring to not support a kid that they didn't create.
Sio at December 14, 2011 4:15 AM
dadof1,
You are way off on Momof4. You obviously haven't been around here much.
E. Steven Berkimer at December 14, 2011 4:25 AM
I second E. Steven Berkimer.
Lindsayloowhoo at December 14, 2011 5:11 AM
dadof1, I feel sorry for your 1, as you are an ignorant fuck who obviously can't read simple basic declarative sentences like "This law is beyond stupid". I was married before I was pregnant, and my hubby doens't have any little bastards running around from before our marriage because he knows how to take responsibility for himself and his dick. You? I'm betting not so much.
momof4 at December 14, 2011 7:39 AM
dadof1: She's married to a 2nd gen boarder hopper, so technically legal in the us. Her grips are abortion, welfare and probably the ability to kick out her pregnant daughter. Don't particularly like her but your assessment is off base.
vlad at December 14, 2011 10:52 AM
"Where are all of Amy's commenters who stand up to complain when courts allow unmarried mothers to give their babies to competent married couples?"
________________________
Who did this? I missed it.
Posted by: Radwaste at December 14, 2011 4:09 AM
___________________________
My guess is, it's this case:
"Birth Fathers Getting Babies Adopted Out From Under Them In Utah"
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html
lenona at December 14, 2011 10:58 AM
Second generation boarder -hopper? DH's family has run a ranch in Falfurrius since Falfurrias was IN Mexico. His great great grandfather Calixto Sanchez fought in WWI, for the US Army. But yeah, you go with your "boarder hopper" bullshit. Making crap up helps cover the severe lack of knowledge on most any subject you care to pontificate on, doesn't it?
momof4 at December 14, 2011 1:29 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2854719">comment from dadof1Momof4 supports this law because obviously someone as ignorant and lazy as she is has to trap a man in order to get him to stay around! I wonder if she'll pollute the world even more by squeezing out yet another screaming meatsack to claim more welfare, and try and trap her next victim!?
I was in deadline turmoil when I saw this comment, and I forgot to come back and say something. Read through momof4's comments on this site and you'll see she's anything but what you assume of her in your really offensive comment (and I'm hard to offend). In my perception, from reading her over the years she's frugal, sensible, libertarian, highly personally responsible, loyal, ethical, and nobody's freeloader. She also seems to have good values about men.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2011 1:36 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2854721">comment from Amy AlkonYou, on the other hand, dadof1, make highly offensive assumptions about somebody who you've probably never encountered before -- in comments here, for one, and certainly not in real life. That says everything about you and nothing that's good.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2011 1:37 PM
He jumps over people who live in his house?
Just like his parents did?
Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2011 3:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2854915">comment from Conan the GrammarianSecond generation boarder-hopper?
He jumps over people who live in his house? Just like his parents did?
Missed that. Hilarious, Conan.
I'm frequently amazed by the assumptions people make -- about me, about other people, about other things. We're prone to do this as humans, but if we recognize the tendency, and how irrational it is to make unfounded conclusions, it helps us avoid it.
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2011 5:25 PM
"Where are all of Amy's commenters who stand up to complain when courts allow unmarried mothers to give their babies to competent married couples?" _crid
Who did this? I missed it. -Radwaste
No one did this, crid is lying via obfuscation again
lujlp at December 15, 2011 8:58 PM
Time for men to get their balls back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5OdQGbVNa4
Anna at December 16, 2011 8:43 PM
My ex-partner became verbally and physically abusive during her pregnancy. I felt terrible about moving out, everything I've ever been taught told me that you don't leave a pregnant woman, but at the end of the day I was simply too scared to sleep in the same room as her.
Sure, her behaviour could probably be blamed on mood swings or hormones, but whatever the excuse her behaviour was still abusive. This law, if passed, will punish those who seek to escape abusive relationships.
wissler at December 17, 2011 1:09 AM
Fuck this shit. This reminds me those laws in some arabic countries where the women are not allowed to divorce their husbands, unless the men give consent.
Everybody condemns these laws in arabic countries because they are sexist and don't give the women the right to choose but when they try to strip away the exact same rights for men, it's just fine!
Pathetic.
Vinícius E. at December 17, 2011 8:04 AM
They're basically giving women the legal right to coerce men into fatherhood against their will. Now whenever a woman has a "oops, guess I forgot my pill" pregnancy or lies about being infertile, gets semen from the used condom, etc. it will be illegal for the guy to leave the deceitful b*tch? If you need any proof that laws are biased against men and protect.
Gabe at December 17, 2011 9:06 AM
>> Your forgetting the handful of documented cases wherein women retreived condoms from the trash to impregnate themselves.
Well, there's always
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rihC1QsCKBw
freddie the frog at December 17, 2011 2:27 PM
Damn, what is with all the man-hating bitches out there? Maybe if they had traditional family values, we wouldn't be in this mess. How about making "refusing to be in a stable goddamn relationship" a capital offense?
Johann at December 20, 2011 11:47 AM
"Read through momof4's comments on this site and you'll see she's anything but what you assume of her in your really offensive comment (and I'm hard to offend)."
---
After encountering lots of people in real life who make statements like momof4's, you develop some intuition as to what is behind those comments.
I agree that people shouldn't make unfounded assertions about posters they haven't met. My first sentence could be a rational reason for making those assertions, though.
I wonder if momof4 gets her life paid for by a man.
Val2 at December 26, 2011 11:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2879040">comment from Val2After encountering lots of people in real life who make statements like momof4's, you develop some intuition as to what is behind those comments.
My first sentence could be a rational reason for making those assertions, though.
How?
I wonder if momof4 gets her life paid for by a man.
If she's the stay-at-home parent of four children -- which is the right thing to do if you have kids -- I would hope so.
Likewise, Glenn Sacks' wife paid the bills during the three years (when his daughter was 3 until she was 7) that he was the stay-at-home parent. As it should be.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2011 5:56 AM
"Likewise, Glenn Sacks' wife paid the bills during the three years (when his daughter was 3 until she was 7) that he was the stay-at-home parent."
--
Yes, but not for his whole life as a career sit-at-home. He was also still in the world and not having reality deflected by a man.
And sadly, the position I described above is what a lot of women want to put themselves into. And lots of them do.
YahBut at December 27, 2011 6:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2879068">comment from YahButGlenn and his wife have one child. If you have four children, you're going to be home longer. This is a decision some couples make. If it's a decision by the couple, and not something forced on a man by "Whoops, the little strip turned blue!" what's the problem? When people have kids, somebody needs to do the work of staying at home and parenting them. This is a good thing and I laud momof4 and my neighbor, who is a highly trained architect who loves working, and does certain kinds of low-family-impact freelance work when she can, but is home with their just-born third child. As it should be.
Are you all advocating that parents leave their children with nannies?
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2011 6:12 AM
"Are you all advocating that parents leave their children with nannies?"
--
Even 21-year-old children?
No.
I have no problem with a parent staying home with small children. If they have 17 children spaced over 18 years, I guess that's her lifetime job.
But back to reality.
If they have one child and that's her ticket for sitting on her fat butt for the rest of eternity - and also being shielded from reality by the man - I think the man is delusional and downright stupd for doing that. I also think the woman is selfish for taking it, no matter how bad the man has been hypnotized by "Real Man" crap from society.
We have enough entitled women who don't work. Do we really need more?
YahBut at December 27, 2011 6:21 AM
Oh, and since you're fond of extremes in your arguments, Amy Alkon, how about a woman with no kids who manipulates a man into paying for her life?
Let's see how you defend that. Yah know, that Heather Mills just wanted the best for Paul.
YahBut at December 27, 2011 6:23 AM
Actually, Heather had a kid, though, so I guess she's covered by Amy's argument above.
I guess I'll have to get a different example.
YahBut at December 27, 2011 6:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2879084">comment from YahButOh, and since you're fond of extremes in your arguments, Amy Alkon, how about a woman with no kids who manipulates a man into paying for her life? Let's see how you defend that.
Why would I? Read my site and my work before you make assumptions about me.
Personally, while I've been with my wonderful boyfriend for nine years and can't see not being with him, I don't believe in marriage because I don't want kids and I don't think it's anybody's job to pay for me but me. I think having somebody pay for you, especially if they make more money than you (and men typically earn more than women), makes you tempted to stay with them for the wrong reasons.
Got any further assumptions about me to toss out? I've got a busy day, so I'd like to dispense with them now.
Book recommendation for you: Albert Ellis' How To Control Your Anger Before It Controls You.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2011 6:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2879088">comment from Amy Alkonsince you're fond of extremes in your arguments,
It's now "extremism" to suggest parents' shouldn't have children and then immediately farm them out to nannies? Well, I guess then I'm an "extremist."
I'm also for other "extremes" like maintaining intact families and only having children in them as opposed to "checkbook daddyhood."
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2005/10/fetal-attractio.html
Whoops. So sorry to not fit your spittle-flecked assumptions.
Do get that Ellis book. You radiate "angry asshole" and that's never a winning place to be coming from in an argument.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2011 6:32 AM
"Got any further assumptions about me to toss out?"
--
Not really.
Maybe just the passive-aggressive thing, evidenced by your book suggestion.
But that's not my problem 'cuz you don't seem to want to address my responses.
YahBut at December 27, 2011 6:34 AM
"It's now "extremism" to suggest parents' shouldn't have children and then immediately farm them out to nannies?"
---
No.
I meant that your first arguing technique appeared to be to go to the position of a woman with more kids.
I went to the other end. A woman with no kids.
_____________
"You radiate "angry asshole" ..."
--
I'm not going to name-call back.
Thanks for the discussion.
YahBut at December 27, 2011 6:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2879110">comment from YahBut"You radiate "angry asshole" ..." -- I'm not going to name-call back.
Aww, how sweet.
This is what a person who makes assumptions -- spittle-flecked -- radiates. It's not "name-calling"; it's descriptive.
Again, the Ellis book should help.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2011 6:47 AM
I do, at the moment, get "my life paid for" by a man. I find people who birth kids only to let others raise them because they'd rather have a big house/nice SUV/trips to the salon/whatever pretty pathetic. My husband and I agreed we wanted a big family-he's hispanic and they tend to see kids as blessings-the more the merrier. We also agreed I would stay home as I was fresh out of college when we married and got pregnant, and he was stably employed and rising in his career. He still is. In his field there is as much working at night as during regular business hours and there is no way he could be a father without my making that sacrifice. I assure you he finds it worth it-since as he says "I'd be working no matter what".
I find almost every working mom (natch, make that EVERY working mom who isn't single) I've met tries to excuse it with "we need my paycheck" and yet if they were willing to lower their lifestyle a bit-not make their family poor, just lower the luxury extras-they would not "have" to work. They want to. Which is fine, but not if you want kids and you hubby wants to work too. I do know a few career moms with stay at home dad husbands. That works equally well if both partners agree to it. A lot of men wouldn't be happy with that, and if the wife wouldn't be happy doing it either, I think they need a willing grandma or aunt or someone. Paying the lowest bidder to raise your child is irresponsible at best.
Anyone who has been on this site for more than this post knows I have a college degree, am working on another, and will work as the kids age up into school. Even the imbeciles new here to this post know-if they ca in fact read-that I said in my very first post on this thread "This law is idiotic". I can't see any way to make my feelings on this law more clear. There are a lot of damaged assholes in this world, and several seem to have found their way to this post.
"you seem to radiate angry asshole" isn't namecalling, it's an observation. I think they were correct in it, too.
momof4 at December 27, 2011 6:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/13/muzzling_men.html#comment-2879193">comment from momof4Momof4 and I don't see eye to eye on a number of issues, but I've read between the lines about her life, and I have tremendous respect for her. Note the line in her comment about lowering lifestyle to stay home -- those are really good values she's communicating. This is a woman who knows what's important and lives accordingly, and I respect the hell out of her for that.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2011 7:31 AM
>
momof4, I just want to give you my perspective.
I'm apparently one of the few men who wants his wife to work if kids are not involved. Apparently.
She said the same thing - that when our (one) son was old enough, she would surely go back to work.
The problem is that lots of people start getting agoraphobia when they've sat home for years or decades. There is a real fear of going back to work - where people may laugh at you if you fuck up. And you are going to fuck up in the beginning.
So lots of women take the path my wife did.
As I started noticing that I was doing all the parenting - because he was moving into high school, and lots of stuff was now in my sphere - I touched on the subject of work.
As time went on, the promises to look for work (she has a Master's degree - more than me) started turning into screaming matches if I even brought it up. Tears, screaming, accusations thrown my way, instant fight if I even mentioned something tangential to a job, "why do you constantly bring this up": if I brought it up again after three months - "why do we have to talk about this now": if I brought it up at the most convenient time.
I get the picture after several years. I never bring it up. She yells at me that I have to do "half" around the house, and I do it. I wash the dishes mostly. I dust. Oh, I pay for our son's education as he's off to college; almost forgot about that little detail. That's her idea of equality, or I get a screaming fit.
I can live with it. The only thing that REALLY bugs me is that I overheard her telling her friend that "I won't let her work". Cool. Sorry, I have trouble respecting women like you because of my particular situation.
Robert at December 27, 2011 2:51 PM
Sorry, the quote didn't come through.
I'm basing the above comment on momof4's comment:
"... and will work as the kids age up into school."
I put that where you see the > symbol above; it didn't make it through.
Robert at December 27, 2011 2:53 PM
Remember that it is CONSERVATIVES that push this type of legislation. They are brainwashed into a perverse form of chivalry, and think that abortions only happen because the evil man abandoned the helpless, noble female.
A chivalrous conservative is the police-state leftist's best friend.
Toads at December 27, 2011 3:11 PM
Everyone here needs to read the Misandry Bubble. There are another 50 laws like this that criminalize the male gender.
Feminism is a hate cult designed to criminalize the male gender, and it is no exaggeration to say the average man in America is just as dehumanized by the law as the average woman in Saudi Arabia.
Toads at December 27, 2011 3:14 PM
No doubt that happens some, Robert, though it sounds like you picked a peach to marry. I'm getting my nursing degree. 1) I had great nurses when I was delivering and preggers every time, that makes a huge difference. I want to help people like that and 2) I can work any hours in any number of clinical situations, or do home health care. Or hospice care. I put a lot of thought into degree #2 for hirabiity, flexibility, and practicality. So I will use it.
Also, a Masters doesn't mean a lot if you haven't worked or used it in any way in 15 years or more, she may not have been able to find a job. I'm well aware I'll be going in as a bottom-level nurse with bottom level pay alongside much younger people. But as long as I get a job right out of school I don't think that will be a problem to find a job, nursing demand being what it is. And DH does well but man I want that paycheck someday!
momof4 at December 27, 2011 3:54 PM
This is why, back when I dated, I insisted on anal sex when I wanted orgasm. 9 out of 10 women I dated complied.
Crude? Disgusting? Maybe. But I'm not saddled with babies I didn't want just so I can make some chick's car payments for her.
Yup at December 28, 2011 3:55 AM
> But I'm not saddled with babies I didn't want
No?
I bet the resemblance was uncanny.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 7, 2012 6:32 PM
Leave a comment