'Single Mothers by Choice' Behaving Badly (Part I)
November 25th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
A few weeks ago I debated the issue of "Single Motherhood by Choice" on the BBC. The producer emailed the guests the 2006 London Times article Focus: Going solo (6/4/06), and among those I was debating was Viki Matten, who is discussed in the piece as an early pioneer in the "Single Motherhood by Choice" movement.
The article unintentionally reads like a laundry list of bad behavior by "single mothers by choice." A couple examples:
1) "[Former Spice Girl] Geri Halliwell (pictured) last month gave birth to a daughter, Bluebell Madonna, conceived during a six-week fling with the screenwriter Sacha Gervasi. Early on in the pregnancy Halliwell fell out with Gervasi — apparently when he questioned whether the hasty conception had been an accident. The hapless 40-year-old was then reportedly reduced to hanging around London’s exclusive Portland hospital hoping to catch a glimpse of his baby, having found himself superfluous to Halliwell’s requirements."
2) "Some women, of course, don’t want to stop at one child. Clare, a 35-year-old criminal law paralegal from Berkshire, has done a 'double Geri', resulting in Charlie and Mia. She got pregnant by her then lover in 2003. Shortly after the baby was born, the relationship fell apart. She then plotted with her best friend to set up her unsuspecting ex a second time.
"I seduced him in a pub car park when I knew I was at my most fertile,' she says. 'I put on a little floral dress and a bit of makeup. I had a lucky shot, and that was it.'"
"));
19 queries. 0.392 seconds.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
What wonderful role models for society's daughters.
Scamming sperm-trappers taking what they want from men -- sperm, cash, or whatever they need.
Society's various governmental institutions stand ever-ready to "protect" the poor victim women -- by looting the men they victimized, by depriving "their" children of fathers -- whatever they need really.
Does anyone believe that our Western governments -- dominated by completely mediocre individuals who are working in government or as "family" lawyers because legitimate employers in the private sector really found no use for them -- will ever stop underwriting this madness on their own? How can they given all the different ways they derive power and income from this badly misguided enterprise?
November 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
We guys sometimes only have ourselves to blame. If we would only "keep it in our pants" and not spread our sperm around so freely, then possibly you would see fewer men being "tricked" into producing a child out of wedlock. Whatever happened to good ole fashioned marriage as a vehicle to conceive a child? Maybe if we wouldn't lay down with every woman that came along shaking her ass at us men's contribution to conceiving a child would be of higher value. Maybe fathers and fatherhood would be viewed with more respect. As it is, because of many men's promiscuity, men are simply viewed as sperm donors to these types of women. We men need to take our role in producing a child more seriously, and stop having women manipulating us into producing a "fatherless" child.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I’m not surprised by this behavior. What’s not mentioned here is that these women and their children can sue for back child support when ever they feel like it, and win.
So, not only is the father robbed of a relationship with his children, but he can be the victim of extortion at any time.
Besides, a mother can “choose” who will live and who will die.
Why is it so unfathomable that they should choose who will have a father and who will not?
Don’t blame women for having these choices. All of us are to blame for this.
Kevin Merck
November 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Just goes to demonstrate how fallible men are when it comes to sex. I agree - men need to keep it in our pants, but why criminalize a natural instinct that has lead us to survive and prosper so well?
I guess its humanity's implosion happening. Thus the low birth rates in the developed countries (which incidentally also have the most feminist inspired laws).
November 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Is there a comments section on the original article? I would love to see what comments people leave.
November 25th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
SouthernDad, you're absolutely right. I always tell my boys if you can't control yourselves use THREE condoms. Yes, three. It might seem a tad over the top but better safe than sorry. NEVER believe a woman who says she's on the pill or any other type of birth control. Half the time she's lying and even if she isn't the added protection doesn't hurt anyone. It's a cheap, unscrupulous act, going around trying to trap men in such a way, but if you guys set yourself up for robbery, expect to be robbed. The only person qualified to look out for your best interests is you. I sympathise with a lot of the injustices that good men face in the western society today, but seriously many of you need to grow up and stop being so naive about a pretty face and a nice piece of ass because even if she doesn't succeed in robbing you dry of everything you own, the system will gladly do it for her.
November 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Amen Davina. I would also add that men today have, in many ways, abdicated their traditional role as fathers. Instead many men have handed that duty over to women, thus giving women far greater power than they deserve. We sit and complain that fathers and fatherhood is being diminished and marginalized in today's society, but yet we are doing it to ourselves. We don't need to give feminists any more ammunition to destroy us. We need to stop fathering out of wedlock babies. We need to take more responsibilty for our own sperm instead of handing it over to women on a silver platter. We men don't realize the power we have as fathers in molding and shaping society. We men must stop giving that power over to women or we will be obsolete.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
SouthernDad, you've spoken a truth (men need to exercise greater self-control) that I think most responsible men would agree with.
I would add that your point is in marked contrast to the radical feminists and the women Glenn references, who want zero responsibility for their conduct when it comes to sexual relations. They are "victims" when they willingly become intoxicated, knowing damn well what is about to happen; and they "have every right" to seduce and trap a man into having a baby, as if men are nothing more than bulls who exist only to ejaculate and service a woman's duplicity.
November 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
First, most people would like to be optimistic and believe people are honest and truthful, something that women seem to demand of men and do not apply to them selves
Second, saying that men set themselves up for robbery and expect to be robbed is minimizing the woman’s part in this, it is close enough to be able to compare that if a woman looks, acts, dresses, and seduces a man then says no, because she has set herself up for rape she should expect to be raped. So I do not buy into that argument.
Third, it is women who need to grow up because it is immature to acquire anything through deceit.
Fourth, if men need to keep it in their pants then it can be said of woman that they need to keep their legs closed.
Lastly, true your are responsible for yourself however, it takes two to make a baby and that also makes it true that at least 50% of the responsibility is with the female and if this baby was created by deceit in my opinion the whole blame needs to be assessed to the person who deceived female or male.
b
November 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
True true Bernie but you said it much better than I could have. Frankly I'm sick of this blame game nonsense. We can spend an eternity trying to properly assign blame but it won't do a bit of good towards doing something about the problems people pointing fingers over. The point it that we have not achieved gender equality. There are imbalances on both sides and whining over who has it worse won't do anyone a bit of good except the people writing/selling books.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Danny Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
==========
NICE!
b
November 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Bernie, first of all let me just say, relax. We're on the same side here. I'm perhaps just as, or even more, fed up with feminist propoganda spreading than most.
Ok, so in response to what you've said:
"First, most people would like to be optimistic and believe people are honest and truthful, something that women seem to demand of men and do not apply to them selves"
Yes, I sincerely believe many guys are optimistic and believe people are honest and truthful ... however, when a guy, for example, is in a dark nightclub looking at some georgous scantily clad chick writhing to the music on the dance floor, from experience, I can almost guarantee you that optimism and faith in the goodness of human nature is the LAST thing on his mind. Coupled with alcohol, this is especially true the younger the man is, hence my admonishment that they should grow up and stop making themselves victims for preying women. Having said that, though, I am not in any way relieving women of their responsibility and if that's the impression you got, you misunderstand. What I'm trying to say is that don't trust her to safeguard yourself because you never know what agenda she might have up her sleeve. In the throes of passion, the guy is usually too much in heat to even THINK she might have an agenda. You're a guy, am I wrong about this?
Don't act first, then think later when later is often too late. That's the mistake many men always make. I have so many friends who come to me saying, "she said she was on the pill" or "she said she couldn't have kids" or "the condom broke". To kill all these excuses, I say use three condoms. I wasn't particularly fond of this movie, thought it was greatly misandric more than not, but if you've seen Knocked-Up, the events that took place in the film is exactly what I'm talking about though the circumstances under which the child was conceived was not trickery, but rather carelessness, as a result of drunkeness, from both parties. The guy in this movie was so smittened by a pretty face that he totally bought whatever she told him and viola, she ends getting pregnant even though she was suppose to be on the pill (or something like that. I don't remember the full details of the film because as I said I didn't like it, but I know the guy ended up finding himself in a situation he didn't think was possible all because he depended too much on the girl's word.)
"Second, saying that men set themselves up for robbery and expect to be robbed is minimizing the woman’s part in this, it is close enough to be able to compare that if a woman looks, acts, dresses, and seduces a man then says no, because she has set herself up for rape she should expect to be raped. So I do not buy into that argument."
I respectfully disagree with this. I personally believe that a lot of the legitimate rapes that take place in this country could have been avoided had the individual exercised some or more caution. But considering that feminism teaches a women to flaunt her sexuality whenever, wherever to whomever she pleases because that is her perogative, you have too many women behaving irresponsibly (getting drunk, wearing clothes that are too revealing in questionable areas and around questionable characters etc) and thus setting themselves up to be raped. I would not go to a frat party, get drunk and start dancing topless on the bar because I'm not naive enough to think that ALL men are able to control themselves.
The same is true when a man signs a contract or gives a police statement (particularly in a murder investigation where he's the prime suspect) under the influence both the contract and the statement can be held up in a court of law. The fact that he was drunk at the time of signing has no bearing on the case. He should have known not to be drunk under such a serious undertaking. I think the same sort of responsibility lies on a woman, because at the end of the day she is responsible for her own safety. I'm not saying that people can't drink, but drink sensibly. Don't drink, especially if you're female, until you can't stand on your own two feet and you can not possibly make a rational decision. The fact that women, as supposed equal counterparts of men, are exempted from this responsibility under VAWA is highly discriminatory because it basically tells women do whatever you want, walk naked, drink til you can barely stand, it's all good.
Maybe in a perfect world, where those who rape and prey on people don't exist, yeah sure, knock yourself out. But we do not live in a perfect world. The world is filled with all sorts of misfits and lunatics, and therefore you engaging in reckless behaviour is just drawing these people's warped attention to you. I know, you could be a saint or an angel of God, and these things could still happen to you, but there's no reason for you to give them any more ammunition to harm you. What's why I said guys should not put themselves in a position where a woman can take advantage of their momentary lapse in judgement because they're too horny to think straight. If you protect yourself from such two-timers, they can't two-time you. I'm not saying women don't have responsibilities, of course they do, but do all of them honour these responsibilities? Do all of then even know, think or accept that they have any resposibility? I think its fair and safe to say many of them don't. They're, after all, women, remember? They're "entitled" to do whatever the heck they want. So why leave it up to her? Why not safeguard yourself from the get-go?
"Third, it is women who need to grow up because it is immature to acquire anything through deceit.
Fourth, if men need to keep it in their pants then it can be said of woman that they need to keep their legs closed."
You're of course very right about all of the above. Again my point is not to relieve women of their responsibilities. NO, my point again is simply this: DO NOT DEPEND ON HER TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR YOU. In many cases, especially if her intention is to trap you, SHE WILL NOT SO WRAP. IT. UP!
"Lastly, true your are responsible for yourself however, it takes two to make a baby and that also makes it true that at least 50% of the responsibility is with the female and if this baby was created by deceit in my opinion the whole blame needs to be assessed to the person who deceived female or male."
We're in full agreement, no argument from me here. And if I were a family court judge, and if children weren't innocent, could grow themselves and develop into full wholesome human beings without the emotional scars the absense of a father creates, I would relieve, if that's what they wanted, all men of any and all parental duties whatsoever if a child was conceived under false pretences. As it turns out, however, I'm not a family court judge and children are innocent. They can not grow themselves. I'm sure they would have been quite happy to remain wherever they're coming from had we not chosen to bring them here. Once they're here, they will need their father's love and guidance, so such a ruling would not be in the best interest of the child even though it is in essence vastly unfair to the deceived.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I agree with Bernie and Davina -- I think they are saying largely the same things, and they are right.
A clarficiation of something Davina said: "The same is true when a man signs a contract or gives a police
statement (particularly in a murder investigation where he's the prime suspect)
under the influence both the contract and the statement can be held up
in a court of law." For contract law, not true if a reasonable person would have known the man was intoxicated at the time he executed the contract. And his intoxication can always be a defense in the criminal statement scenario (whether the judge will buy it is a different story).
Criminal law is different. Generally people are responsbile for their criminal acts when they are drunk, period. The same is not true of victims. WIth that said, I am complete agreement that the feminist nonsense that women have zero responsibility to prevent rape is absurd. But let's be perfectly candid among us guys -- some radical feminists would actually prefer more rapes, I am convinced, to make their point. And if anyone objects to that statement, please recall their reaction when it turned out Ms. Mangum lied about the Duke lacrosse players. Did you hear any of them say, "Gee that's great that she wasn't raped." The attitude was the opposite -- subdued disbelief. In some cases, anger, and resentment. Unbelievable.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Judge Rufus, thanks for the clarification. My sister-in-law is a lawyer (real estate) and she was the one who informed me about the signing of a contract under the influence. Now, that you've given a new take on it, I'm not sure which one is correct. I'll have to talk to her again. That being said, I'm sure you'd agree there's always loopholes in the great American law system ... if you get a cunning enough lawyer, s/he could probably get the court to uphold the contract even though you were drunk while signing.
Anyways, that aside, I completely agree with you when you say it would appear as though they want more rapes to occur. First of all, they never go out and admonish the women who falsely accuse men of rape. Secondly, many times it is as you say, they are filled with anger and resentment when they discover that the guy is indeed innocent. I mean, I thought since they were so concerned about the welfare of women, wouldnt they be glad that she actually wasnt violated.
The only conclusion left to draw is that their agenda has nothing to do with equally, just plain, unadulterated hate-mongering.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Your sister-in-law gave you correct information, Davina -- and I suspect she'd not disagree with the caveat that a contract lacks validity when one party knows the other party lacks capacity or understanding due to intoxication or diminished mental capacity. It's called the "objective theory" of contracts -- parties to a contract may rely on the objective manifestations of assent by the other party and need not divine their secret, subjective intentions or state of mind.
And I agree that the radical feminsits are into hate mongering. They simply want to make their point, and don't really care about specifics that don't advance their agenda. Now their principal battleground in the rape arena is date rape, which is a tough sell once they move ten feet from the prissified, politically correct campus settiing where men are bad and white men are worse. Most juries are smart enough to figure out when consent is present.
November 25th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Judge Rufus Peckham Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I agree with Bernie and Davina -- I think they are saying largely the same things, and they are rig
=====
Yep, I did not think I implied anything different that what Davina said, so that being said really I am relaxed and just wanted to clarify what was said so there is no misunderstanding
but the one thing I did not understand in the same paragraph is:
I respectfully disagree with this. I personally believe that a lot of the legitimate rapes that take place in this country could have been avoided had the individual exercised some or more caution . . . you have too many women behaving irresponsibly (getting drunk, wearing clothes that are too revealing in questionable areas and around questionable characters etc) and thus setting themselves up to be raped. I would not go to a frat party, get drunk and start dancing topless on the bar because I'm not naive enough to think that ALL men are able to control themselves
The above seems to say exactly this
Bernie Misiura Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
"Second, saying that men set themselves up for robbery and expect to be robbed is minimizing the woman’s part in this, it is close enough to be able to compare that if a woman looks, acts, dresses, and seduces a man then says no, because she has set herself up for rape she should expect to be raped. So I do not buy into that argument."
b
November 25th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Judge Rufus Peckham Says:
November 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
With that said, I am complete agreement that the feminist nonsense that women have zero responsibility to prevent rape is absurd.
========
For instance, several years back my sister-in-law was going to visit NYC. My grandmother lived on Flatbush and I lived there in the summers. I am quite familiar with the way NYC worked and am glad to say that is made a dramatic change.
However, after giving her the then proper rules of NYC, respect the personal space that 2” bubble that is around everyone, careful of eye contact and what it means, and never under any circumstances exit in an ally, as it to defy the dumb male that knows nothing, the first thing her and her girlfriend did was eat at McDonalds and exit to an ally. They were robbed. It could have been worse but I had no idea why I even bothered giving them survival techniques that she did not adhere to… good grief. . . she was aware of the rules and she was responsible for this happening. . .
b
November 25th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Blaming men for women getting pregnant is what feminists have been promoting for many years now. Their mantra has been “he should have kept it zipped up”, never acknowledging any responsibility on the part of the female.
The fact that so many of you have bought into that garbage is unfortunate.
Women are just as responsible for keeping their panties on, as any man is responsible for keeping “it” in his pants. The simple fact of the matter is that people do have sex, and no matter what precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy will not occur.
The question then becomes a matter of equal protection under the law. Women should not be given special consideration because of their gender. Men and women must be afforded equal protection under the law regardless of what any of our personal opinions are about “personal responsibility”.
Men and women must be held to the same standard … period.
Therefore, men must be allowed the option of giving the child up for adoption the same as the mother has that choice. By giving the child up for adoption, either parent would then forfeit any parental rights and obligations, leaving the other parent the option of raising the child on their own, or allow a third party to adopt the child, thereby relieving both parents of parental rights and obligations.
If both parents want custody, then there would be 50/50 custody with no child support awarded to either party, unless agreed to by the parties.
It’s fair, it’s impartial, and it’s not rocket science.
As long as women, the courts, and state governments, stand to profit immensely from women getting pregnant to make the father a slave, this injustice will continue. It has nothing to do with “personal responsibility”. It has a great deal to do with equal protection under the law.
When women realize there is no way to profit from a pregnancy, the problem will cease to exist.
Kevin Merck
November 25th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Bernie -- excellent illustration of the fact that you were looking out for the young women's interests, not "excusing" the evildoers of their misconduct.
This is the problem: there will always be robberies and rapes because there are bad people out there. The goal is to minimize it -- teach our boys and girls to respect people's wishes (women and men) and teach our boys and girls that there are some bad people out there, and that there are ways to avoid gettting hurt by them.
The funny part is, this is nothing more than common sense; when I was growing up, no one would mistake good advice like this for excusing the bad people of their misconduct. Sadly, any time you suggest women need to be careful, the feminists recoil and act as if "the patriarchy" is excusing the misconduct of our fellow men. Oh, right -- we all meet at the urinal to discuss how we're going to take advantage of women and how we're going to cover it up. That is nuts! Just like you, Bernie, we all have an interest in seeing to it that women don't get hurt. Why are we monsters for trying to help?
November 25th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Kevin M -- excellent. The double standard you mention is breathtaking. I believe the fair thing would be to not allow either parent to slink away from her or his parental responsibilities. If you allow women to do it, it is grossly unfair not to allow men to do it. Unless you are saying the man is a nothing but a wallet and the woman is nothing but an infant. The law holds everyone to their actions unitl the damn radical feminists get their fingers into things. We need me to be involved when they are fiddling with the laws. Men and women need to be equally responsible for pregnancy, and neither should get a special gender break. You bring a child into the world (unless you deceived the partner about using birth control, etc.) you damn well better take responsibility for it -- as an adult.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Meant to write: "We need men to be involved when they are fiddling with the laws." Too many laws were passed while men were sleeping -- not organized, not informed. We did not have the benefit of Glenn or this Web site when most of the worst laws were passed.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Judge, the worst of that is it is not just a law it is a Constitutional right that Kevin speaks of it is covered under the XIVth amendment section 1 last sentence "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
b
November 25th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
That's right, Bernie. We know that judges don't unilaterally take it upon themselves to tinker with the Constitution. Like, for example, the "right of privacy" that's in Article -- uh, that Article seems to have escaped me. Oh, that's right, it's not in there.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:58 am
I agree with you, Kevin, but until the system afford both genders said protection under the law, men have to start looking out for themselves more. Plain and simple.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:18 am
SouthernDad seems to have a very low opinion of women. In his view, it would seem that a man should never trust a woman.
I believe that people should be able to trust each other in a well balanced society.
What he may not realize is that the system as currently set up in America strongly rewards cold-hearted predation by women upon men. A man in America cannot
November 26th, 2007 at 8:38 am
SouthernDad seems to have a very low opinion of women. In his view, it would seem that a man should never trust a woman.
I believe that people should be able to trust each other in a well balanced society -- one devoid of incentives for interpersonal exploitation.
What he may not realize is that the system as currently set up in America strongly rewards cold-hearted predation by women upon men. A man in America cannot
1. compel a woman to have a child against her wishes and make her a parent without her consent, then
2. take the child away from her against her wishes, and finally
3. use the child as a litigation weapon to extort money from her.
But a woman can.
Using one extrem to justify another -- such as the "logic" that what some "promiscuous" men do to innocent women somehow justifies some predatory women do to innocent men -- does not produce a balanced or stable social model. It produces a complete mess, which is what we have in America right now.
The practice of always rewarding and never punishing women for trapping men into biological and financial fatherhood, noting that a woman CAN'T GET the big money unless she also cuts the biological father out of any actual fatherhood role (duh!), is what has made fatherlessness so rampant in America.
Do you want your nieces and daughters to grow up with this outlook? Well, they are because our bloated, self-serving government and it private-partners-in-greed (lawyers) are making it "normal" for them.
Citizens who blame this upon "promiscuous men" or "gold-digging" women are showing how deeply they have been duped into not blaming the truely culpable in all of this. Such citizens need to find their own minds and stop "thinking" the propaganda thoughts which they have been drip-marketed into believing to be true.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Ever tried giving advice to a woman? know what the reaction is? You are trying to control me - it's always the same ploy We Are Not Responsible For Anything - you are and whatever happens it's your fault. I wish there was a medication we could swallow which would desexualize women for quite some time. Nature wants us to propagate, multiply and be fruitful. But they have so much sexual power because of this. We are going to HAVE to be the ones to do something and pretty damn quick mates. Doctor...Doctor...
November 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Davina Says:
November 26th, 2007 at 2:58 am
[I agree with you, Kevin, but until the system afford both genders said protection under the law, men have to start looking out for themselves more. Plain and simple.]
What exactly should a guy do to protect himself while our citizens take decades to demand that women be treated the same as men?
Everyone knows that condoms are not a reliable means of birth control. If a female intends to get pregnant in order to come after someone for child support, a condom is not going to get in her way, and neither will three condoms.
Do you suggest men get a vasectomy to protect themselves against predatory females?
As long as the courts are determined to treat men as second class citizens, and people just sit back and allow it to happen, there will be no other safe alternative, other than total abstinence. Plain and simple.
By the way, total abstinence is what I’ve been practicing for the last twelve years. If your sons want to remain relatively free and independent, they better do the same. If one of those condoms fails, or somehow gets a hole poked in it, it will cost them most of the rest of their lives, plain and simple.
Kevin Merck
November 26th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Our "family" courts have decreed all women in America to be sperm traps who can each ultimately demand and receive a bone crushing slave-ownership contract over the male she got/took the sperm from.
Marriage doesn't matter. His consent doesn't matter. His being the primary caretaker before she seeks to assert her slave-owner rights doesn't matter.
Meanwhile, the pig lawyers, the power-tripping judges, and the fee crazed GALs are raping this system for all they can.
And unfortunately, most of these "lawyers" (sic), "judges" (sic) and "Guardians (sic) ad litem" are the kind of low-qualifications "professionals" (sic) who could NEVER make this level of income in any other way. They do not have the skills. Family court lawyers are some of the most bumbling incompetents I have ever seen in any field, let alone a field like law in which incompetents survive quite well. So they will fight to the bitter end to not let parents have their children equally, or let men out of illegal slave contracts.
They are the ones keeping this system in place folks.
We men are merely trying to survive in this sick context. And some of us are trying to fix the situation. But understand that these greedy, power-tripping pigs are not going to go down without a fight. And since they are accustomed to lying, cheating and stealing (which many do daily as part of their jobs), one must expect that the range of self-preservation tactics they employ is not going to be pleasant, professional or lawful.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
what is really sick is that women can even stand up in court and state that they "intended to get pregnant and not get married" - to the shock of the jury - but with predictable results. The male is screwed for 20+ years by a woman that intended to entrap someone.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:42 am
"What exactly should a guy do to protect himself while our citizens take decades to demand that women be treated the same as men?"
Kevin, pardon my audacity, but I find this to be a somewhat silly question. What have we been discussing here all along? Indeed why did a guy like Glenn, with such a lovely family, even bother to take it upon himself to start this blog when he could have been off doing something a lot more fun with his life that feeling compelled to right the ills of society? Let me tell why in a few short words: the double moralistic, hypocritical hate movement that is modern feminism that tells women it is okay to fight for equal rights but still expect special treatments on basically ALL faucets of life, that's why. Don't you know that royalty and commoners are not subjected to the same enforcement of the law? My friend, you ought to know your place. You are after all "male."
Sarcasm aside, though, Kevin, we both agree that both genders should have the same protection under law. But they do not! Until we do guys have to hold their assets up in arms or suffer the hard way.
Yes, you're right, basically no form of contraceptive is 100% guaranteed, however it is highly unlikely that pregnancy will occur in the presence of three condoms. It is a method that has been tried and tested among my social circle, and has been proven to work. It also has the added benefit of protecting one from STDs. I'm not saying it's the best method, but until the male pill comes or it suddenly strikes the government to afford men equal rights under the law, it's the only closest to 100% safe method I can speak off. However, if you have a better idea, do share it with us.
Regarding the vasectomies, yes, if vasectomies were not an irreversible condition, I'm for anything--considering that the law continues to ignore the constitutional rights of half the population--that will protect my by boys' lives from the destruction of deceitful, predatory females.
"As long as the courts are determined to treat men as second class citizens, and people just sit back and allow it to happen, there will be no other safe alternative, other than total abstinence. Plain and simple."
This is a valid point. But the fact that people like Glenn, Mark Rudov (slightly controversial though he is) and the tons of other MRAs (including myself) are starting to make our voices be heard, I'd hardly say people are just are just sitting back and allowing it to happen. Due to the advocacy of people like Glenn, more and more men are wisening up about their rights and the anti-male society we live in. We're definitely making steps in the right direction though we still have a long, long way to go.
And finally to the last part of your comment. Seriously, Kevin, I don't know how you do it. I don't even know if I should take you seriously. Twelve years? Pardon my female naïveté, but I was under the impression that was not even possible for males? I wish you could convince my boys to hold out that long, then 3/4 of my worries would be alleviated until they're older, hopefully more mature and inclined to make sounder decisions when it comes to women. But, honestly, I think if you really deny yourself the joys of intercourse and companionship for the reason you stated, you're letting those lunatics win by allowing them control over your life though celibacy may indeed be the safest policy.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:37 am
SouthernDad, you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't have put it better myself.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hey, has anyone got her e-mail or telephone number? I'd like to get the whole story on this gal?
November 27th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Davina Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:42 am
All I can say Davina is I wish I hadn’t responded to your comment. I won’t make that mistake twice.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I look at the issue as being another example of selfish sense of female entitlement.
If the law didn't reward women for doing it, there would be considerably less of it. I think that a fulcrum shift needs to occur. Until the law changes (not likely, there's an entire industry setup around using sex and reproduction to take money from men), men need to see this as often as possible and learn to become what women used to be - the gate keepers of sex and reproduction.
I'm of the opinion we should start drilling this into our son's heads - no matter how nice, agreeable, sensible, moral, ethical, headed-down-the-same-path-in-life she may seem, it can all change in a second, and you're screwed until you retire, and quite likely, beyond that, too.
I think that we should start demonstrating to boys that girls are fickle. "What have you done for me, lately?" is the anthem for the mainstream modern woman, and our culture does little to hold women accountable for anything.
Case in point - if I got drunk as a frat boy, and ended up penetrated by, say, another equally drunk frat boy, no one would feel the slightest bit sorry for me. Don't get so damn drunk, next time, would be the typical response. A woman lives in disneyland, for all of the accountability she has for her own situation. Get plowed, dance on the tables, hang on all the frat boys, whatever. If she later decides that she didn't really mean to have sex, someone is going to jail and faces a life-ruining trial.
Same goes for violence - male offenders getting drunk and violent face severe penalties. Women, drunk and violent - aww, isn't it cuuuuuute! Women are not likely to be held accountable, even with witnesses, and it is more likely that whomever she hits will be charged with assault, instead. (I'm still waiting on what happens to The 2004 Bachelor when his fiance gets out of jail http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312688,00.html )
I'm not, in any sense of the word, saying that non-consentual sex is ok. It's not. I think the definition, expanded to where it is today, has created more problems than it solves.
Another case in point - two minors consent to sex. The boy is a criminal, period.
Yet another case in point - on an almost daily basis, FARK.com has a report on some female teacher having sex with a minor, and the disparity in how these cases are prosecuted, and the broad difference in jail time for men committing the same offense, along with the excuse-making and minimizing of that same woman's involvement is apalling. Oh, and if a child results, she gets to keep it, and is likely an excuse not to incarcerate her, or reduce her sentence. The boy will either be separated from his child, or worse, forced to pay child support. Now compare the odds of a male teacher seeing his offspring of such an affair. It's likely that he'll be paying support, if he ever sees the light of day again, that is, and isn't murdered in prison.
I have to say, in light of things, sex is a bad deal for men, and getting worse on a daily basis. I see little difference between the women portrayed in this story and prostitutes. Except, the prostitute only wants to be paid once, and is a little more honest about her interest in the transaction, and these women seem to bask in the glow of approval.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I looked at the original "Focus" article, and I have to look at the scorn heaped on the "Roe v. Wade for Men" case in Michigan. The disparity in responsibility is glaring. Too bad - no matter what she said when you two argeed to sex; Fraud, accident, intentional - doesn't matter. Get a job, loser, and get a fresh checkbook.
Unless the drunk trainwreck of a mom owes support - then forget it. 20+ months of nothing, and "they'll send her another letter". Sexist hypocrites at the Texas AG's office, I tell you.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:51 am
If women want to use their vaginas for sex then they should be required to get a proper registration document from the federal government. If all single moms did it thru proper legal channels there would be less problems. I guess we need the law passed.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:51 am
All of you are so right in so many ways. Men get screwed by the legal system, which then helps the women, after the men get screwed by the women. And everybody thinks that all of the men do all of the screwing. It takes two to make a baby. Yet the women get off so easy, and then they get all of the help from the government, judicial system, etc.
It looks a little like legalized prostitution and a type of mafia work. The courts/legal system make it happen by allowing it and the women are out "selling the services". Then the government steps in and helps the women get the "residual income" they want for the next 20 or so years. I guess that is why the government wants to get rid of the mafia so bad -- they hate the competition.
Unfortunately, there is no equality, or justice in the system. I have always been known as an optimistic, idealistic and an easy going person until I had the "pleasure" to go through this mess. I hate to say it now, yet I have very little faith in the system. I have experienced a few small victories through all of this and then I am pulled back into court over this mess since she wants it all and for me to have nothing. And the courts will give it to her. I have become cynical, sarcastic, pessimistic, and broken down (in many ways -- including financially) over all of this. Oh yeah! They will give it to us also -- just in a different type of way! (without a kiss and without any lubrication also)
Remember, if any change will happen it will be very slow and over a very long period of time. It may be too late when or if it happens for us as dads to be involved in the lives of our children. The children will suffer the most and a downward spiral in our society has already begun and it will continue at a faster pace than it is right now. I remember reading this quotation, "Lawyers do not get paid for solutions, they get paid for problems." With that said, why should we expect any change? think about who makes the laws and those in politics. What type of profession do they have? They are lawyers.
Back to the article, as long as women want babies without men involved permanently they have the full opportunity and full access to take advantage of the situation, and we get the blame and a few other things. The system will help them along the way through the entire process. As the comedian Yakoff Smirnoff used to say, "America, what a country!"
Again, we men need our version of Martin L. King Jr. to step up and help us with equality, justice, and everything that is good and fair for men. I wonder if I should ask for a black female judge to consider helping men in all aspects of the court system like MLK helped blacks have the respect and equality they deserve. I cannot change my gender any more than a person of color can change his/her color.
Glenn, please take all of this to the next level and get the word out to everybody, especially the politicians. Do it like the old Hardees restaurant commercials, "If you are going to go -- go all out!" We need to call those in power on the carpet and make them step up for change. They need to know that men vote also.
Frustrated