Your Take: What "Choice" Means
YES! "Women can choose if they want to opt out of the legal and financial responsibilities that come with parenthood--by aborting a fetus--and therefore, so should men." https://t.co/LlS6SEKPM0
— Cathy Reisenwitz (@CathyReisenwitz) November 12, 2018
Here's the link to the VICE article she tweets on whether men should be able to opt out of fatherhood like women can, to have a "financial abortion."
Realistically, this sort of choice on the man's part is unlikely to fly, as the state would very likely have to step in to pay for the child. In many cases, anyway.
The state, as we've seen, already goes after countless men who aren't even a child's father in hopes of getting payment:
It's hard for the average person to believe the stories of paternity fraud that are out there, but it's absolutely sick, what happens -- and it does happen. A woman can name a man as the father of her child -- even a man she's never met, let alone had sex with -- and if he doesn't contest it in the correct amount of time (often 90 days, depending on the state), he's on the hook for child support.And never mind ordering a DNA test after they declare him on the hook. And never mind if he never even got the paperwork to contest the paternity fraud.
He's on the hook. 18 years of child support. For a child who isn't even his.
Wasn't there a case where a woman had an affair, the man found out their kid wasn't biologically his, they divorced, she moved in with the bio-father, and the ex-husband was paying child support to an intact bio-family?
90 days seems way too short to me.
NicoleK at November 12, 2018 10:05 PM
90 days is probably fine NicoleK. But the law should require proof that he was notified. It doesn't matter if it is 90 or 360 days if you are never informed. Sending notice to incorrect addresses is common.
Ben at November 13, 2018 6:32 AM
It's an open secret that states don't try very hard to find putative fathers. Because, as was said above, whenever the state can tab a man -- any man -- for child support, that's one less child that Medicaid has to cover. But there's also a very old-fashioned morality to this. I won't even call it Victorian; it's more punitive than that. Maybe "Calvinist" is the right word. It's the idea that men are inherently sinful for desiring sex with women, and therefore any man who is dinged for support deserves it, regardless of whether he and the woman actually had sex. (In fact, regardless of whether or not the man has ever had sex at all.)
Which loops back to the abortion thing. I agree that it's queasy, morally, for a man to be able to legally disown responsibility for a child. But is that more queasy than the actual abortion? The current situation is untenable, and is already leading men to reject the idea of marriage or meaningful relationships with women. Among our elites, we're already seeing the return of the feudal notion that it is the privilege of elite men to have sex with any woman they desire, and hold lesser men responsible for the consequences. (The takedown of Harvey Weinstein was a blow against that, but it may wind up being a drop in the ocean.) Women will have to sort this out, because nobody will listen to a man's opinion on any of it.
Cousin Dave at November 13, 2018 6:48 AM
I had a female friend who got dogged by the State of California for child support. They were trying to find a man with the same last name and an "o" in his first name where she had an "i." (They probably had similar SSNs.) She kept calling them to tell them of the mistake, thinking it was straightened out, but she kept getting letters. A former employer told her they got an order to garnish her wages after she'd left. The final straw came when they garnished $10 out of her unemployment check. She had to drive to LA to show them in person that she was not the father. But I always wondered how the child's mother felt waiting all those years for child support, to finally get a check from the State, only to find $10 (or less). And then she probably had to give it back.
Fayd at November 13, 2018 7:08 AM
That feminists do not strive to allow men to have a financial abortion is one of the many things that reveals "equality" feminism to be a poisonous fraud.
That women are generally perfectly happy to have their cake and eat it, too -- at men's expense -- ensures that men will NEVER give women the respect they so shrilly demand. Contempt is the natural result.
Jay R at November 13, 2018 9:00 AM
Jay, women aren't allowed to have financial abortions either. They aren't allowed to show up at the guy's house, dump the baby, and walk off with no obligations.
No, 90 days is NOT enough notice. Because in the case of paternity fraud the dude might not find out for years and years.
NicoleK at November 13, 2018 10:09 AM
They aren't allowed to show up at the guy's house, dump the baby, and walk off with no obligations.
Well, no. But there's this notion of "adoption".
And if I recall correctly, in Florida you can show up to a fire station or police facility and legally abandon your child to the state.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 13, 2018 10:27 AM
Weinstein was only a symbolic push back against that Cousin Dave. I read it more as if you are going to be an elite and take advantage of elite privileges then don't ever dare to stop being an elite. All of those privileges can be revoked retroactively.
NicoleK, I think you are talking about the wrong thing with the 90 days. For notice and registering an objection I think 90 days should be plenty. But I also think one ruling shouldn't be permanent for life. If you go to jail for murder and then it is proven that you didn't do it you get out of jail and get compensation (is the compensation enough I won't touch right now). Why is paternity more permanent than a life sentence? If you can prove you aren't the father why should you be forced to continue child support? Why doesn't the money that was fraudulently taken from you get returned?
The common argument is 'this is in the best interests of the child'. Which is complete and utter bullshit. It is in the best interests of my child for all of you to give me anything I want. Life doesn't work that way.
Ben at November 13, 2018 10:33 AM
Amy, it seems to me that history shows your "realistically" part doesn't hold water.
In the early part of the 20th century, courts in the US mostly did not award child support unless the parents had been married when the child was conceived or at least when he/she was born. The principle was that if you wanted child support, you should have married first. But even though abortion was much harder to obtain then, this stance did not result in lots of children becoming wards of the state. Rather, it resulted in women keeping their legs crossed. I would expect the same if the "male abortion" were enacted now.
What's more, the ill effects of lots of "single mothers" having children are not at all limited to the direct welfare cost, whether paid by taxpayers or fathers. 30% of all children now born in the US are in that category. And because they are raised carelessly and poorly, and without any good role models in the home, most of them have no futures except the dole or crime.
Most of the women who choose to bear these children do so because it gets them welfare payments that allow them to live on their own without working. That incentive needs to be taken away before the Marching Morons they are raising overrun our country. Let the law refuse them the dole and put the children into foster care instead, and most of them will no longer be born.
jdgalt at November 13, 2018 10:35 AM
Men can opt out of fatherhood with adequate birth control.
Lori Miller at November 13, 2018 10:57 AM
"Men can opt out of fatherhood with adequate birth control."
If such a thing existed. The only highly effective birth control for men is celibacy. And going back to Amy's point -- you can be a male virgin and still get dinged for child support.
Cousin Dave at November 13, 2018 11:56 AM
Men can get a vasectomy, use other birth control, avoid relationships with flaky women. And yes, a male virgin could be "dinged" for child support--just like anyone can be wrongly accused of anything.
Lori Miller at November 13, 2018 12:31 PM
When it comes to paternity fraud (as opposed to cases where the man just doesn't want to be a father), things used to be pretty bad for men in California, 20 years ago or so, since in theory, a woman could simply pick a random man's name out of a phone book and then tell the authorities to go after him. Rumor has it things have changed in that state, since then. Obviously, DNA tests - despite being wrong about 10% of the time, according to my GP - need to be allowed as a legal defense against that, even if it takes three tests.
And when it comes to better reversible male birth control, I'm getting the impression that the 30-plus-year rumor is true - that if men really WANTED it, they'd have it already, just as rubber condoms have been available AND legal in the U.S. since 1918. (Of course, that was likely mainly due to Margaret Sanger, who had to fight the Anthony Comstock laws even after he died in 1915.)
Why do I think men aren't really eager to have better BC, as opposed to wanting other men to use it?
Because the Parsemus Foundation has dutifully put Vasalgel through all the animal trials and would be happy to start the human trials - but they're still struggling for funds and can't say when they'll start the human trials! Where are the rich rock stars and athletes who would supposedly be first in line to get it? Not to mention married men whose wives can't use hormonal methods? If THEY aren't eager to fund it, what men are?
(And if male celebs don't get vasectomies even after age 50, as a rule, doesn't THAT prove they don't care much about possible unwanted fatherhood?)
More on it:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Vasalgel/posts/
lenona at November 13, 2018 1:11 PM
✔ Lori Miller at November 13, 2018 12:31 PM
Crid at November 13, 2018 1:32 PM
From a 2011 thread (re "contraceptive fraud," not paternity fraud):
______________________________________
If we start letting ADULT "victims" like this off the hook, ANY father who didn't want a kid could simply say "she lied" or "she did THAT trick." Even if she didn't. (Btw, the real-life failure rate of the Pill is 6%, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. So don't complain about having to use condoms too.)
Let's also remember that no politician with half a brain is going to support (or allow) any bill that would likely make the abortion rate skyrocket.
________________________________________
Anyone who's old enough to understand the words "long-term consequences" is old enough to have obligations and responsibilities. Such as buying and using condoms even if you're a man and you hate them.
Also, who wants to go back to the days when even married men could abandon their wives and children and not get seriously pursued by the state for child support? If unmarried men were allowed to do that in the future, why wouldn't married men, eventually?
If parents, BOTH men and women, were forced to support their kids, taxes would go down for everyone, including the unwilling parents. Who doesn't want that?
(Obviously, taxpayers are not likely to kick out-of-wedlock kids to the curb just because most single women understandably can't stand the idea of choosing adoption anymore - especially compared to abortion - and taxpayers DEFINITELY are not going to pay for other women's kids when fathers can pay instead.)
lenona at November 13, 2018 1:48 PM
Anyone who's old enough to understand the words "long-term consequences" is old enough to have obligations and responsibilities. Such as buying and using condoms even if you're a man and you hate them.
_______________________________
To clarify: Whether you're male or female, if YOU'RE the one who doesn't want a pregnancy, it's YOUR job to make sure it doesn't happen. Again, every contraceptive has a failure rate, so don't act as if you've never heard that before.
_______________________________
But even though abortion was much harder to obtain then, this stance did not result in lots of children becoming wards of the state. Rather, it resulted in women keeping their legs crossed.
_________________________________
Am I supposed to believe that all those "orphan trains" were full of children who were ALL born in wedlock? Besides, when you were female and poor, not having sex could easily have cost you your job, back then. Or your housing. Or both.
lenona at November 13, 2018 2:19 PM
> Men can opt out of fatherhood with adequate birth
> control.
Phrased more accurately: never allow a woman to be in charge of birth control.
Also, always flush it.
Snoopy at November 13, 2018 2:23 PM
No, don't. It's very bad for the plumbing. If you can't count on being able to take it somewhere else in town that she doesn't know about and THEN put it in the trash, use Tabasco. If you must.
lenona at November 13, 2018 2:41 PM
Or, better yet, put contraceptive foam inside - after using it. (I've never heard of putting it inside a condom first - because it would just squeeze out during use, I assume?)
Of course, that would mean the man would have to buy the foam.
lenona at November 13, 2018 3:36 PM
The really bad cases of paternity highlight just how anti-male the justice system is, and how feminists like it that way.
When a 30 something yr old woman old can rape a 13 yr old, and go after the 13 yr old for child support because a judge decided a convicted child molester (sometimes while in jail) being awarded custody is "in the best interests of the child", what chance does a regular guy have in court.
Joe J at November 13, 2018 3:54 PM
Or, better yet, put contraceptive foam inside - after using it. (I've never heard of putting it inside a condom first - because it would just squeeze out during use, I assume?)
Of course, that would mean the man would have to buy the foam.
lenona at November 13, 2018 3:36 PM
Some brands of condoms come with spermicides on the inside, as an extra protection measure,
A lot of out of wedlock births, from what I have read, are the result of drunken hookups. Not a lot of thinking or planning going on. Sex is like eating. If our genes weren’t programmed to want it and enjoy it, the human race would have gone extinct long ago.
Isab at November 13, 2018 4:10 PM
Jdgalt, that wouldn't work today. In the time you are referencing becoming a 'ward of the state' mean the child would be taken away from the mother. Today that is no longer true. Instead the child stays with the mom and she gets a check from the government.
A far more effective solution would be to give fathers an honest chance at child custody. If the father chose to try for custody and the mother didn't give up hers, flip a coin. 50% of the time the guy gets the kid and she pays support. I expect you would see a wave of women changing their behavior.
Of course that is never going to happen. Family law is famously misandristic. Not having a mother in the house would be 'not in the best interests of the child'. Not having a father is somehow ok.
Ben at November 14, 2018 5:36 AM
Thank you, lenona, for once again coming along to explain to us idiot males how much smarter you are than us, and how you know our innermost thoughts so much better than we know them ourselves. What would we do without women like you.
Cousin Dave at November 14, 2018 8:28 AM
Would you kindly explain what was wrong with the evidence I gave (even if it isn't solid proof) that the average man isn't that eager to get better male BC? Are YOU donating all the money you can spare to Parsemus? What explanation do YOU have for rich men not funding it, when it's easy enough to do that anonymously if they want to?
As I've mentioned before, Meryl Streep campaigned for better male BC in the 1970s and 1980s, but IF she stopped, maybe it was because she couldn't get enough men interested? Maybe the same goes for Dr. Warren Farrell, who made it part of his platform when he ran for governor of California in 2003 but has hardly talked about it since then?
Just because SOME men have been begging the Indian government to let them enter the country and act as guinea pigs for RISUG (last I heard, only Indian citizens are allowed to do that), doesn't change the likelihood that, in the U.S., married men will continue to trust their wives (usually for good reason), and men who are not in long-term relationships will still be under pressure to use condoms. What man is going to use two male contraceptives at once? As author/YouTuber/psychologist/MRA Bernard Chapin once said about Vasalgel: "It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me."
(Not to mention that, while many MRAs chat gleefully to each other about how better male BC will bring back the patriarchy in a flash and how the birth rate and abortion rate will plummet, offhand, I've never heard of a famous MRA who actually said he would use it himself. They just can't wait for OTHER men to use it, it seems. But who would that be?)
lenona at November 14, 2018 1:09 PM
Oh, and some MRAs love to argue that if we don't have better male BC already, it's due to a feminist conspiracy. (Other MRAs, like Marc Rudov, refuse to talk about it at all - he seems to think that any man who's been with the same woman for a year or more shouldn't HAVE to think about birth control - that it should be her job. Also, of course, if male BC became widespread, family judges everywhere would lose what little sympathy they had for divorced and unmarried fathers, so it's no wonder many MRAs won't talk about it.)
But, as I've mentioned (and Amy agreed with this), if there were any such feminists, they'd also be opposed to single men having access to vasectomies. The only female politicians who are opposed to that are those conservatives who oppose birth control for women as well. (Don't bring up Betty Friedan - there is NO clear evidence that she was opposed to anything other than the possibility of men lying about "being on the pill." Any father of a teen girl can sympathize with that one.)
And my point is, I've never heard of any MRAs trying to convince rich, famous men to fund Vasalgel. They don't even try that hard to convince each other to open their wallets. They're just...waiting passively.
lenona at November 14, 2018 1:57 PM
Lenona,
Your argument fails because it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of how men in general think as compared to how women in general think.
Women have a greater tendency to group together for social causes than men do.
You are using this behavioral difference as "evidence" of a general lack of interest on the part of men, but that isn't how they tend to think.
Men also have much higher suicide rates than women... and yet they don't go out in mass marching for the cause... or soliciting rich and famous men to put an end to this travesty once and for all.
Based upon your style of logic, the same way men aren't interested in male BC... I suppose they aren't interested in living either.
The point is you are inappropriately applying a very female way of thinking about and approaching problems to men... and it doesn't quite work that way.
If pill form male BC was readily available, men would use it... but they are unlikely to go out marching in the streets demanding it either. Men in general do not take to the streets to solve the social ills that impact men.
Artemis at November 15, 2018 4:34 AM
"Based upon your style of logic, the same way men aren't interested in male BC... I suppose they aren't interested in living either."
Precisely.
That is why men kill themselves. In another words, they are no longer useful to Mother Nature because they are not doing their assigned job participating in making new babies.
Usually depressed suicidal men are not horny. Then, Mother Nature will try to kill them with testicular cancer (getting fired from your job) or suicide (quitting your job). Your choice. Either way, you will be losing your job and life because you are not doing your job.
Men are not interested in male BC because it is not their assigned job to do so by the Mother Nature. It is not their best interest in participating male BC.
That job was given to females by the Mother Nature. Who gets pregnant and fat for 9 months? Who risks death during child birth? Who has to provide milk to the infant?
Mother Nature is a misogynist and a bitch. Once you accept this fact, your life will get a lot easier.
Chang at November 15, 2018 7:46 AM
If pill form male BC was readily available, men would use it... but they are unlikely to go out marching in the streets demanding it either. Men in general do not take to the streets to solve the social ills that impact men.
_________________________________________
I never said anything about men needing to campaign or even group together if they aren't already MRAs. What made you think I did? Just donating money, as individuals, would do just fine. If some MRAs aren't happy with the fact that Vasalgel isn't here yet, the least they can do is fund-raise, but they don't. So why are they whining? "Put your money where your mouth is."
As I've said elsewhere, it's simple economics. Don't Expect a Supply Without a Visible Demand. What's wrong with that?
Of course, it's also possible, as a Dutch MRA said, that the average man just sees this as another burden men will be asked to take on for women's sake - and that idea turns him off.
lenona at November 15, 2018 9:51 AM
Men also have much higher suicide rates than women... and yet they don't go out in mass marching for the cause... or soliciting rich and famous men to put an end to this travesty once and for all.
_____________________________________
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The reason I mentioned rich, famous men is that everyone knows that those men - even those who aren't famous - are targets for golddiggers. (But even golddiggers aren't always eager to get pregnant, as the Chicago Bulls' Horace Grant pointed out in 1991.) So I would expect those men, more than other men, to want Vasalgel for THEMSELVES. What's stopping them from getting it any more than anything else that would save them a pile of money - or any luxury, like a boat, that would COST them money?
Btw, if a man is afraid of women being turned off by a man who doesn't let women control male fertility, all he has to do is not mention he's using it. Sort of like that man on Craigslist who didn't tell his girlfriend he'd had a vasectomy before he met her - and only told her when she triumphantly told him she was pregnant. See here:
https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html
lenona at November 15, 2018 10:18 AM
Oh, and Chang, you make it sound as though men are never unhappy or angry to hear about an unplanned pregnancy. Ha. (Especially in an age where child support laws have a few more teeth than they did pre-1990.)
Adult women (IF they don't live in one of the 20 states that are waiting to outlaw abortion) can generally get at least semi-effective, safe BC. If they WANT to. If they want to get pregnant, only those men who take preventive measures won't become fathers.
When men insist on sleeping with women they don't know that well, they're bound to find themselves with women who don't want what the men want. Frequently.
lenona at November 15, 2018 11:26 AM
"Jay, women aren't allowed to have financial abortions either. They aren't allowed to show up at the guy's house, dump the baby, and walk off with no obligations."
In a marriage, women are in fact able to just walk away and leave the kids with the husband. I know cases.
cc at November 15, 2018 12:27 PM
Lenona Says:
"As I've said elsewhere, it's simple economics. Don't Expect a Supply Without a Visible Demand. What's wrong with that?"
What is wrong with it is you have a historical double standard in place.
Back in 1950 Margaret Sanger underwrote the research necessary to create the first human birth control pill and raised $150,000 for the project.
It wasn't until 1960 (~10 years later) that the first oral contraceptive was approved by the FDA.
In terms of Vasagel, there is an entire foundation that is working on raising funds and you continually act as if such people and/or organizations do not exist:
https://www.parsemus.org/contraceptives/raising-funds-vasalgel-manufacturing/
In other words... you act as if the fact that oral contraception for women was demanded by market forces when in fact it was driven primarily by the actions of a particular individual... and that similar contraceptive methods for men would be here already if not but for the interest of men despite the fact that entire organizations are working toward this goal as we speak.
Why don't those organizations count to you, but apparently Sanger on her own mission was in some sense a market force?... also one cannot simply force Vasagel beyond climinal trials and to the market via economic forces, FDA approval requires medical testing and clinical trials that take time (again, ~10 years for oral contraception for women).
You are comming up with excuses that do not match the historical record and do not accurately reflect current events.
Artemis at November 16, 2018 3:40 AM
Um, I've mentioned Parsemus multiple times over the years. Besides, since Vasalgel has a Facebook page, it's not as though anyone who cares about male birth control can't find a way to sponsor it easily.
And Margaret Sanger had women lined up around the block when she opened her first clinic in 1916 (and got arrested for opening it, ten days later). Sounds as though women were only too happy to pay anything they could afford, both then and later. But back then, at least, if the average woman didn't have a lot of money to spare, it wasn't necessarily her fault. Not to mention that women have been seeking effective contraceptives since prehistoric times. (One plant in Rome - silphium - became extinct as a result of overuse. Maybe. From Wikipedia: "Demand for its contraceptive use was reported to have led to its extinction in the third or second century BCE.")
You certainly didn't say Sanger had a lot of unexpected trouble coming up with the $150,000. Maybe because women everywhere were happy to help?
"The point is you are inappropriately applying a very female way of thinking about and approaching problems to men... and it doesn't quite work that way."
So in the 21st century, men who sulk about a problem, silently or not, instead of doing anything to solve it (like donating money or at least begging their DOCTORS to do something in the BC industry), are just being logical and masculine?
Sounds a lot more like that woman in the "It's Not About the Nail" video (see below). Why, all of a sudden, is "feminine" NOT to behave like that woman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
Btw, you DO know that Vasalgel is nonhormonal and has passed the most or all of the animal tests, right? Last I heard, the ONLY thing slowing down Parsemus is a lack of funds. What logical explanation is there for that, other than what I said?
lenona at November 16, 2018 1:36 PM
Lenona,
You seem to be operating under a great many misconceptions regarding how oral contraceptives for women came to the market. Due to these misconceptions you are holding modern men to a gross and unjustified double standard.
"And Margaret Sanger had women lined up around the block when she opened her first clinic in 1916 (and got arrested for opening it, ten days later)."
Public desire for abortion clinics have nothing to do with the development of oral contraceptives in terms of funding or market forces. You are conflating two separate issues. One is about freeing oneself from an unwanted pregnancy and the other is preventing unwanted pregnancy. The motivations for these items aren't exactly the same even if there is some overlap in the mind of modern society. Let's focus on the development of oral contraceptives instead of trying to smuggle in unrelated or tangentially related topics.
"You certainly didn't say Sanger had a lot of unexpected trouble coming up with the $150,000. Maybe because women everywhere were happy to help?"
And here is where you have everything all wrong.
Please carefully read the following planned parenthood article:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1514/3518/7100/Pill_History_FactSheet.pdf
I would like you to pay careful attention to the following section in particular:
"McCormick first pledged $10,000 toward the research. Soon after, she began contributing $150,000 to $180,000 a year, funneling a portion of the money through Planned Parenthood’s research grant program. (Planned Parenthood had supported Pincus’ early studies on mammalian eggs that led him to the work he would do on the development of the pill.) The total of McCormick’s gifts to the research was $2 million, which would be more than $18 million in today’s dollars (Asbell, 1995; Chesler, 1992; Grimes, 2000).
All in all, McCormick donated the lion’s share of the financial resources needed for the research that enabled the fulfillment of the dream she shared with Sanger — making birth control safe, dependable, affordable, and controlled by women (Chesler, 1992)."
There was never some ground swell of support from "women everywhere" to fund the research leading to the first oral contraceptive. There was one wealthy heiress who funded the "lion's share" of everything.
It was Katharine McCormick who more or less personally funded the project.
That is just one person Lenona.
And yet here you are thumbing your nose at modern day men saying that if they were really serious they would take to the streets and throw money out of their own pockets to make it happen.
That isn't how women did it back in the 1950's.
You are operating under a fantasy and holding modern men to an unrealistic and unfair standard that women never actually met.
Artemis at November 17, 2018 5:28 AM
Public desire for abortion clinics have nothing to do with the development of oral contraceptives in terms of funding or market forces. You are conflating two separate issues.
____________________________________________
Honestly. Yes, Sanger supported abortion rights. No, the Brooklyn clinic in 1916 was NOT an abortion clinic - it was for birth control, and she was arrested for "violating laws against giving out birth control information."
More on it:
http://time.com/4065338/margaret-sanger-clinic-history/
"There, for ten cents, any woman who wanted it could get information from a trained nurse that was nearly impossible to find anywhere else: a medically accurate explanation of how the reproductive system works, and instructions on using contraceptives."
And again, if Sanger didn't try to get everyday women to fund the Pill, as opposed to getting rich people to fund it, maybe that was because she knew the average woman, single or married, didn't HAVE a lot of money to spare - especially without her husband's permission? Things are obviously different now.
Not to mention that once it became less than a sin for women to TALK openly about sex - by 1970 or so - things really took off. From a columnist in 1998: "In the quest to control their fertility, women have demonstrated in the millions, gone to jail, jammed the polls, put up with the side effects and health damage, and even died. They pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket every year for contraception and abortion, and donate millions of dollars and volunteer hours to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other groups."
Sounds like a lot of work to me. So it didn't start for a while. So what? Again, what is stopping men from opening their wallets, as women did?
I would liken the arrival of the Pill, in 1960, to the fact that in the 1990s, average men didn't have to beg, campaign or fund raise for Viagra, since anyone could guess that it would sell with no problem, so rich investors had no doubts about footing the whole bill. Clearly, they were right.
But Vasalgel is clearly very different. Big Pharma is afraid it will make other contraceptives less profitable, for one. Also, doctors still say that "men don't like their genitals messed with." So the only way doctors will change their minds and say so is if their male patients convince them they're wrong. Investors want some reassurance that they are making a good deal.
lenona at November 17, 2018 9:14 AM
And you really think that women wouldn't really prefer to have affordable, safe, EFFECTIVE birth control than have abortions? Even a legal first-term abortion today can be pretty painful, from what I heard. I.e., adult females, especially, want abortion clinics as a last resort, not the first. So of course any woman who supports abortion rights also supports family planning in general - and funding it. Whoever heard of one who didn't? (Whereas plenty of anti-abortion people also oppose artificial BC of any kind - and those who don't openly oppose it generally refuse to talk about it. Great way to prevent abortions!)
lenona at November 17, 2018 9:22 AM
Lenona Says:
"And again, if Sanger didn't try to get everyday women to fund the Pill, as opposed to getting rich people to fund it, maybe that was because she knew the average woman, single or married, didn't HAVE a lot of money to spare - especially without her husband's permission? Things are obviously different now."
You are constantly shifting the goal posts.
First you argued that women everywhere were happy to support the financial cause... remember when you said this:
"Maybe because women everywhere were happy to help?""
Then when it turns out that isn't how things happened and that one and only one woman primarily funded the venture you have completely backpeddled and are now asserting that women couldn't possibly have gotten together to help because the average woman was straped for cash and their husbands wouldn't have permitted them to donate.
Good grief Lenona.
You have your conclusions and they are apparently resistent to facts and evidence because every time you hear a new fact you refashion your argument to maintain the original conclusion.
That isn't how logic and reason work.
When the facts change your conclusions should adapt to the new information.
What you should never do is adapt the new information to fit your conclusion by adjusting your story.
That is ideology and not reason.
Now before you get all high and mighty about how it was a different world and men would have not allowed their wives to donate a single dollar to the cause... let's not forget that the scientist who developed oral contraception for women was a man.
In other words... men helped women to obtain oral contraception.
You were given a gift due to the financial investment of 1 woman and the scientific work of 1 man.
You now act as if you earned something and modern men need to do the same.
You didn't earn anything, you were given a present... and that present came from the efforts of an individual man financially backed by an individual woman.
Artemis at November 17, 2018 9:34 AM
Lenona Says:
"Again, what is stopping men from opening their wallets, as women did?"
Women in the communal sense did not open their wallets... there was 1 primary financial backer.
The story you are selling is a lie and you are selling it to generate a false narrative that men aren't actually interested in contraception for themselves.
By the exact same logic clearly women weren't interested in the pill back in the 1950's either.
Artemis at November 17, 2018 9:38 AM
Women have fought hard to remove any involvement and decision making by men in procreation or marriage.
Now women, particularly Leonora are shocked that men feel disengaged and abused by that system: that your hook up isn't interested in paying for braces or in marrying.
This shows a lack of intelligence and empathy.
In the old days, men DID abandon their families...and paid a huge social price. Single men of a certain age were viewed w suspicion. So were single mothers...
NicoleK can't get a 'financial abortion'.
She can only
-get a real abortion
- adopt
- SELL HER BABY
-abandon her baby
But men having a single choice in this whole merry go round is unthinkable to her. These guys need to pull out their wallets and take it!
Hmm!
FIDO at November 17, 2018 9:39 AM
First you argued that women everywhere were happy to support the financial cause... remember when you said this:
"Maybe because women everywhere were happy to help?"
________________________________________
I said "maybe." I apologize for the assumption. But I didn't say they DEFINITELY paid for most or all of it, at least. At any rate, am I supposed to believe that ordinary women didn't give ANYTHING, in time or money, to that cause or to Planned Parenthood in general, since 1916 - or that "lion's share" necessarily means "all" in this case? (In the original Aesop's fable, it did, but other writers - including Lewis Carroll - used it to mean only the majority.)
At any rate, it's just plain childish for men to complain (and you're the only person who does, it seems) that because the masses of men DIDN'T have to start a grassroots campaign to get Viagra or do any real work for it, they shouldn't have to work or pay to get anything new they SUPPOSEDLY want from medicine, either. (Name at least two other medical products that men claim to want but won't work for.)
_____________________________________
Now women, particularly Leonora are shocked that men feel disengaged and abused by that system: that your hook up isn't interested in paying for braces or in marrying.
____________________________________
I NEVER said that. Of course many men are backing off from marrying.
lenona at November 19, 2018 12:01 PM
Also, I can easily believe that many men would be happy to have Vasalgel available in the US.
(Leaving aside those men and women who oppose BC across the board - and there are more than you might think, if Rick Santorum's campaign in 2012 was any indication.)
But...they just don't want it enough to PURSUE it. (Maybe I should have spelled that out?) Examples:
Men who aren't in LTRs - yet - and have to use condoms all the time
Men who don't care how many babies they have
Men who trust their wives and/or don't want to think about birth control but want choices for other men
Men who aren't quite aware that the anti-contraception movement in the US just might extend to condoms and other male BC. Until the day when you (or someone you know) go to get Vasalgel only to be told "I won't do that" or "I'm not allowed to do that or even tell you who will"? Or the day that pharmacists won't hand out the male Pill...
Men (millions of men?) who are too poor to donate $100 or more to Parsemus.
What I don't get is those men who complain about the lack of contraceptive options online but aren't willing to get offline and go on TV, for starters. (As I said, some MRAs are like that. Others won't talk about male BC at all.)
If a man's only post-birth right is to sue for custody and then demand child support, well, no man has to go through the DIRECT ordeal of abortion or childbirth/adoption either. Seems like a pretty fair trade.
Btw, I'm hardly the only one here who thinks that even if better BC were already here, it wouldn't sell that well.
Quote:
________________________________________
Male birth control? Puleeze. I had enough trouble getting men to put on a condom. If a pill for men ever gets made, and has even HALF the side effects of the female one, I'll eat a bucket of shit if it turns a profit.
Allison at November 9, 2007 8:24 AM
lenona at November 19, 2018 5:49 PM
Ohio Law assumes the ex-husband is the father if the child was born fewer than 300 days after the divorce was finalized. It takes a lawsuit and DNA to negate that assumption.
bw1 at November 20, 2018 6:14 PM
Lenona Says:
"I said "maybe." I apologize for the assumption. But I didn't say they DEFINITELY paid for most or all of it, at least. At any rate, am I supposed to believe that ordinary women didn't give ANYTHING, in time or money, to that cause or to Planned Parenthood in general, since 1916 - or that "lion's share" necessarily means "all" in this case?"
No Lenona… what you are supposed to do is gather facts and evidence BEFORE forming an opinion.
Instead what you are doing is theory crafting with assumptions and "maybe"'s to get to a preformed conclusion.
What you are supposed to believe based on facts and evidence is that the oral contraception for women was financially backed primarily by 1 and only 1 woman.
If that fact is inconvenient for you I do not know what to say... but that is how it happened.
"At any rate, it's just plain childish for men to complain (and you're the only person who does, it seems) that because the masses of men DIDN'T have to start a grassroots campaign to get Viagra or do any real work for it, they shouldn't have to work or pay to get anything new they SUPPOSEDLY want from medicine, either."
No Lenona… what is childish is you holding men to a wildly different standard than you hold women to.
For men you demand widespread action and involvement to solve their own problems.
For women you imagined excuses for why they didn't get together to start a grassroots campaign to get oral contraception.
They could have done that too I suppose, but they were happy to just wait around until a wealthy benefactor showed up to fund the entire project more or less on her own.
In that regard if men wait around for a wealthy benefactor to just show up then they would be doing the exact same thing women did.
Yet for men you have disdain and criticism if they are to follow that strategy and for women who actually followed that strategy you lionize them and give them enormous credit for just waiting around for a solution to fall in their lap.
The problem is you are holding onto a double standard.
Artemis at November 21, 2018 8:16 AM
Lenona Say:
"Btw, I'm hardly the only one here who thinks that even if better BC were already here, it wouldn't sell that well."
You aren't the target market Lenona… your opinion on this matter does not count.
Shall we start asking the average man to vet new handbag styles and women's shoes to determine what will sell well and what won't?
It seems to me that for some reason you are actively working against male BC options and for the life of me I cannot understand why.
Male BC isn't about women... if you don't like it just get out of the way. You don't have to be a champion for the cause, but the least you can do is not try to drive a negative campaign.
I feel like if you were in charge trojan would be out of business because you would declare a lack of a market for condoms since there are men out there who don't like how they feel.
And yet condoms are still a profitable business.
If you don't want to actively support male BC that is fine, but there is no reason why you should be actively working against it either. It is possible for you to just back off on this one.
Artemis at November 21, 2018 8:31 AM
It's the Patriarchy.
Paolo Pagliaro at November 21, 2018 3:03 PM
Leave a comment