Where did anyone get the idea that men have equal rights? We don't.

Women have the right to vote upon turning 18, period. Men do not. They must register for the selective service, or they can remain disenfranchised for the rest of their natural existence, regardless of how old they become.

Women have the right to genital integrity. A newborn woman cannot be legally circumcised. Newborn males can be circumcised for any reason the parent likes, even if the parent just thinks it "looks better."

Women cannot be forced to become parents. They have the right to abortion, or if they deliver the child, they can leave the child in a depository at the hospital and walk away from all responsibilities whatsoever without spending a dime or incurring a single penalty. Men do not have that choice and never will.

But women have to buy their own tampons, Patrick. And they are burdened with longer lives than men, too!

My son graduated from Stony Brook (SUNY - Long Island) yesterday. Thank you. He's a great kid.
Tuesday night we were idling around and this topic came up. He and his friends have noticed this uber-feminism. They've coined the term over-equality.
Fortunately it hasn't impaired his appreciation of women in general. It's even become more grist for the humor mill.
I think I remember a genre of jokes about hippie girls from the 70s. Maybe they can be modified for this new age.

"Why are men so angry?"
"Why don't men respect women?"
"Why are so many men afraid of commitment?"
"Why would a man say that he doesn't mind if young mothers come home from combat operations in body bags?"

Why, indeed.

Smart, aware women should be DESPERATE to put a halt to feminist ideology and policies, which, in the end, will hurt women most of all.

Congratulations to your son, Canvasback!

"Women cannot be forced to become parents."

Maybe not technically. But if you live somewhere like Missouri (there's only one abortion clinic left there, I heard) and you have little or no money for transportation to another state and you're surrounded by friends and family who are deeply opposed to abortion, it can feel an awful lot like force. It gets even worse if you're a minor. (Keep in mind that pretty much every contraceptive has a failure rate - even when it's getting one's tubes tied - and using two or three contraceptives at once often isn't cheap. Especially if you're not exactly in a position to refuse sex OR to demand that your partner split the cost.)

When Vasalgel becomes available, family court judges everywhere will put pressure on men to use it, I expect. But it's not as though SINGLE men don't already have plenty of health reasons to use condoms - so why don't they use them more often than they are?

In the meantime, I found this interesting June thread at Vox Day's site. (Warning: Aside from VD's being a sexist who even opposes suffrage, his commentators are often horribly racist. Even so, this thread made me think about the need for feminists to beat their enemies to the punch and take a firm stand against ANY woman who commits paternity fraud - and the judges that enable them).

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-wild-card-cometh.html

Quote:

Vox Day:
"I expect this will change male behavior as drastically as the female pill changed female behavior. We can probably expect straight male behavior to more closely approximate gay male behavior once use of this contraceptive becomes commonplace. On the other hand, by rebalancing the power equation between the sexes, it might have the counterintuitive impact of increasing marriage rates.

"I also won't be surprised to see it forced on men in third-world populations."

Comments:

Cail Corishev:
(on why Vasalgel won't get men off the hook for child support) "Child support already isn't about reason or justice; it's about making sure women aren't held responsible for their actions. If women are all getting bred by the same small group of bucks who can't be squeezed for enough child support to satisfy them all, I fully expect the courts to shift from a paternity-based model to a responsibility-based one (we're already seeing signs of this). If you're living with a woman when she gets pregnant, the court will say you gave her the 'reasonable expectation' of support (that phrase is a favorite dodge of judges), so it won't matter that you can prove your non-paternity. Tagging you will be seen as preferable to her standing in line with 15 other women trying to squeeze child support out of some ex-con's minimum-wage paycheck. The courts will relax the requirements for what makes a man 'responsible' until a man can be selected in most cases (and the taxpayers will pick up the rest)."

Student in Blue said:

"I'm going to take a bold (and possibly foolish) stance and say that you're going to be wrong, Vox Day. The pill changed female behavior in a very drastic way, because they were the gatekeepers of sex, and had bound up hypergamy beside. Add to that the constant pushing from academia for 'women, sleep around because it'll be a-okay' and there will obviously be an enormous change.

"The environmental conditions for men are simply so completely different, that I can't see how 'the gel' would be a huge game changer... for every man. Huge game changer for the man with options, certainly... but that ain't most men. Men have the thirst and most of them haven't been locking it away already, so that's not going to burst out like hypergamy did for women.

"So on a whole, it will be a game changer for the alpha and alpha-like men... and it will effectively decrease the average quality of women available to the AFC. They'll still pine away and scoop up the dregs when they get thirsty enough, but unless there's an additional factor coming to play, 'the gel' becoming available will not change male behavior anywhere near as drastically as 'the pill' becoming available did for female behavior when it came out."

Double E said:

"I agree.

"Like you say, women are the gatekeepers of sex. Also, Vasogel doesn't really do anything THAT novel, it just does it better. Any man who is truly worried about getting a girl pregnant has multiple options for preventing it already.

"And the ones who aren't worried about it, well their behavior isn't going to change either. They aren't going to get a procedure, no matter how cheap or easy, for something they aren't worried about."

Eric said:

(quoting Vox Day) We can probably expect straight male behavior to more closely approximate gay male behavior

"I doubt it. Women are already the limiting factor in sex. That's why gay men are so promiscuous.

"I don't think this will change anything for young men. Women don't have any interest in trapping anyone until they've played the field. If this changes anything at all it's going to be that a relative handful of thirty plus year old betas will avoid getting trapped in a sexless marriage."

Oh, and in case you haven't heard, nowadays, most of the women who get pregnant and don't have abortions for one reason or another do NOT choose to give up their children, either. Same goes for teens, I believe.

There's plenty of testimony to suggest that being forced to give up a baby (as women so often were before the 1970s) is far more traumatic in the long run than choosing to have an abortion (and again, one hears far more often of poor young women who wanted abortions and couldn't get them vs. women who were "forced" into having abortions). From a letter to Utne Reader, Jan. 1992:

"....Every time I'm driving behind a car with a bumper sticker on it that says 'Adoption not abortion,' it's all I can do to keep myself from ramming into the back of the car. 21 years ago I, like Diana Selsor Edwards, unwillingly signed relinquishment papers giving up my child for adoption. I am 40 now, childless, and have never really recovered..."

The "Edwards" referred to is a mental health counselor. If you like, here's a 1995 paper of hers: "Transformations of motherhood in adoption : the experiences of relinquishing mothers"

https://archive.org/stream/transformationso00edwa/transformationso00edwa_djvu.txt

Corishev is correct but didn't take his analysis far enough. The reasonable reaction to men living with pregnant women becoming financially responsible for the unrelated child is for men to stop living with women. Just as increasing the financial burden of children for married men has decreased the marriage rate. There is also the risk of increasing homicide of family court judges.

I can say for certain vasagel would be a game changer. I think it could be. It may also be hard to separate it's effects from other societal forces in the US. Family law is so blatantly sexist that a push back may happen over the next generation.

A samll type and a whole sentence changes meaning.

"I can't say for certain vasagel would be a game changer."

It will be a game changer for all of five minutes.

The first few guys who file for divorce when their wife winds up pregnant will get out.

Then they'll clamp down and start enforcing the whole expectation of paternity thing where the guy is the presumed father no matter what

"Maybe not technically. But if you live somewhere like Missouri (there's only one abortion clinic left there, I heard) and you have little or no money for transportation to another state and you're surrounded by friends and family who are deeply opposed to abortion, it can feel an awful lot like force."

I have to ask this again:

How much technology should you, the patient, be able to command to treat you?

Before mandatory health care, this was obviously a function of your net worth. If you paid, you got treated.

Now what - when "somebody else" is the payor?

This doesn't affect just abortion.

I'm confused Lujlp. Why do you have to file for divorce when you aren't married? (Seriously, who gets married these days?)

A lot of people still do marry, obviously, or the collapse of the wedding industry would be all over the news and economists would be panicking, not just the average conservative. Not to mention that there would probably also be signs of gay weddings making close to half of that industry, since gay people are much more likely, these days, to postpone having children until AFTER coming out of the closet - unlike in the 1991 book, "Daddy's Roommate." If they do postpone parenthood, they're more likely to have children in a much more thoughtful manner than the average straight couple.

Lenona,

Only 50% of US adults are married today. And that percentage is dropping. Lifetime marriage is another story as well. Increasingly it is only the rich who get married for life.

In part I was making fun of Lujlp because he is way behind the times. Married men are already responsible for genetically unrelated children. Lujlp's prediction happened something like a decade or two ago. The situation that Corishev brought up was unmarried men living with a woman who gets pregnant from another man. And even Corishev is a bit behind the times. There are men in that situation who have already been hit with 'reasonable expectation of support'. The situation I raised was unmarried man not living with a woman who become pregnant from another man.

Just a reminder:

I know you didn't mention this specifically, but when people say that "half of all marriages fail," they're failing to mention the possibility that a lot of that has to do with those people who marry and divorce over and over. Like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. So that statistic MAY be a bit skewed.

Likewise, even people over 30 who are not married will not necessarily stay that way.

Lenona,

It is under 50% of marriages fail now. The divorce rate has fallen significantly. Essentially people just aren't getting married in the first place. The never will marry rate for men currently in their 30s is 25%. Let that sink in. One in four men in their 30s see no reason to get married and barring extreme change never will. The number is greater for men in their 20s and younger. The never married percentages are less for women.

Following current trends the never marry rate should saturate around 80% in roughly 50 years.

Currently under 50% of children will have the same two parents for their 0-16 years, and the percentage is falling. This is skewed a bit by people with large families being more likely to be married. But not by much.

Essentially everyone born today either will go through the family court system or knows someone who will. If few people went through the system the injustices could be swept under the rug and only specialist groups would care. But there is too much public exposure. It is too common an event to ignore.

As I said elsewhere I don't see MRA groups as a solution. You spend more time with those groups that I or anyone I know. As best I can tell they are hives of scum and villainy. What they want responsible moral men don't want. The greatest success I've seen correcting the law runs with the argument about how these laws harm the new woman in the man's life. Which just highlights how little US society values it's male members.

You spend more time with those groups that I or anyone I know.
_____________________________________

Not really - I just remember quite a bit of what they've said over the last twenty years. Now I mostly pay attention only when they make it into the mainstream news, as in Toronto in Nov. 2012, GQ Magazine in Feb. 2014, Detroit in June 2014, or the alleged uproar over "Mad Max: Fury Road" this year.

Otherwise, they just tend to repeat themselves, so it's not much worth the time.