Octomom's Male Rival
May 28th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Not long ago, "Octomom" Nadya Suleman was much in the news. She had six children and then, for reasons I have yet to figure out, got herself artificially inseminated and gave birth to octuplets. So she's now the single mother of 14 children under the age of six.
Needless to say, everyone within shouting distance of a microphone opined on Suleman. Most seemed to understand that, while she violated no law, her behavior was outrageous and highly irresponsible first to the children and second to the taxpayers who will surely end up paying at least part of the bill.
Not everyone thought Suleman's decision was wrong, though. Feminist Patricia Williams, writing in The Nation, called criticism of Suleman a "perfect storm of eugenics." My first thought on reading that was to send Williams an easy-to-read dictionary, but then I thought better of it. Anyone who thinks that exhortations to act responsibly with regard to procreation constitute eugenics probably wouldn't read it anyway.
And lest you think I'm being harsh towards Williams, she went on to strongly suggest that one's ability to support children should have nothing to do with one's decision to have children. Fortunately, most women are smarter about that than Williams. Even a cursory look at the Guttmacher Institute's surveys of why women have abortions makes it clear that lack of ability to support the child is one of the main ones.
All of which leads up to this story (WVLT, 5/22/09). In it, Desmond Hatchett of Knoxville, Tennessee is revealed to have fathered either 20 or 21 children. He is 29 years old and a minimum wage worker.
Let me say clearly that Hatchett's behavior is transparently irresponsible. As a poorly-paid blue-collar worker, he cannot possibly support all those children. He cannot possibly contribute his fair share of support to them, and he knows it. His behavior is outrageous.
But it is less outrageous than Suleman's for at least two reasons. Suleman is a single woman and she and she alone will have to care for and support her 14 children, at least until the state steps in which we assume will be soon. Hatchett fathered his squad with at least 11 women. That means there are 12 people to support the childen, to change their diapers, feed them, bathe them, put them to bed, read to them, etc. Twelve people can do that with 21 children. One person can't do that with 14.
The second reason is that Hatchett's partners all had a wide array of contraceptive options available to them. So while it was irresponsible for Hatchett to not use condoms as he apparently didn't, he was not the only one who could have prevented pregnancy. So the fault for all those children is not his alone. In Suleman's case, the decision to carry eight children to term to be added to her existing six was her choice. No man said 'yes' to that. Of course someone deposited his sperm in a bank, but that's a far cry from agreeing to what Suleman did.
Now of course we should be hearing from Patricia Williams and the other defenders of Nadya Suleman about how Hatchett's prodigious procreation is his business and no one else's even though he cannot support the children he's fathered. For them to be intellectually honest, Hatchett's decisions about fathering children cannot be second-guessed by anyone. After all, to do so would be to champion eugenics.
That's arrant nonsense, but it's what they should say.
I won't hold my breath.
"));
19 queries. 0.432 seconds.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
", Desmond Hatchett of Knoxville, Tennessee is revealed to have fathered either 20 or 21 children. He is 29 years old and a minimum wage worker."
Hey we may have to get used to it. The gender feminist community has vilified fatherhood, and so many men are paying for children that the mother has taught to hate them,That only the poor and uneducated males will have children.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
From what I can see, as there's no father in the Suleman case to shift blame onto, the nearest male figure in the line of fire is the doctor who inseminated her. Expect him to get thoroughly excoriated. Having a woman held solely accountable for her own actions, even when it's clear that everything was done according to her direction, is something we seem to have a great deal of difficulty with.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I wrote an article about this last weekend and stated that the women were just as irresponsible as he was. He says that the women all knew about his "large family"...who knows exactly what they knew when? I used to shoot pool with a guy in his mid 20's who frequently bragged about his 14 children by 8 different women and women were falling all over themselves to buy him drinks and try to get him to go home with them. I never understood it! Anyway, Desmond's baby mamas (the 11 who have come forward!) are all fighting for child support. Of course, he works a minimum wage job and the state can only take 50% of his paycheck and split that 21 ways so the women are only getting a few dollars each. I have no sympathy for them at all!
A couple of things I will say in his defense: One of the women who was complaining about not getting the amount of child support that was due said that most of the time when she asks him for something (I believe her example was milk) he gives it to her. So to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, it seems like he's making some effort. Also, I had to laugh when I read his comment about "being able to stay on top of it all" and that he knows all their names, ages, and birthdays. It sounds funny, but then again, my ex-husband doesn't know our boys' birthdays. It wasn't the best way for him to say it, but maybe he is trying to "be there" for the kids. Who really knows?
The most amusing thing about the article I wrote is that I've gotten tons of hate mail from both men and women accusing me of being sexist! I thought I was trying to be objective but apparently I just managed to tick everyone off. The men keep writing me saying "Why doesn't anybody mention the women?" I did say in my article that the women are as much to blame as he is...I know it's there, because I've gotten numerous e-mails from women quoting that line and saying that everyone always has to find a way to blame the mother for everything and that I'm a disgrace to my gender. That's ok, apparently I'm also a racist and ignorant. Just for the record, if you're going to send someone hate mail and call them ignorant, don't spell it "ignorent". I've gotten some great laughs from the comments, but honestly, the whole story disgusts me. This is where the stereotypes about single parents come from. Both the men and women in this story need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions...the only victims in this case are the 21 innocent children who sadly will probably follow in their parents' footsteps.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Ok, so Robert Franklin thinks that a guy who fathered and can’t care of 20 kids by least 11 different women is somehow better than a woman who has 14 kids from one man. One of the reasons being that the children all have mothers to take care of them???? Well, someone’s got to since no-condom man won’t. That’s not a reason that he’s “better”. He’s lucky, maybe, since he won’t ever have to do very much. Lucky doesn’t equal better.
And I’m guessing that taxpayers are also helping take care of all his kids too. If he makes minimum wage, I’m guessing they do too, if they work at all. So he’s actually no different from Octomom, is he? Worse, really, since he has no intention of being a father. Just in getting laid and walking away. Oh wait, he will give one of his babies some milk if the mom asks. What a saint.
And Robert Franklin’s second reason is that the women had more contraception available to them? Oh god. How can you seriously use that as an excuse? MRAs love to pretend that a handful of options for women and 2 for men mean that men are not responsible for pregnancies. That is immature. Would any of you accept that excuse from a guy who impregnates your daughter? (You probably would, actually.)
Funny how angry MRAs get when one woman has one baby on her own. This idiot fathered 20. And can’t support them. And never will. The ultimate deadbeat dad. But I bet there is more support among MRAs for him than for a female who unexpectedly got pregnant and then continued the pregnancy.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
An intellectually honest feminist... good one Robert ! I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Oh and ,as if on cue, there is jeana...
SteveinTX
May 29th, 2009 at 1:56 am
"This idiot fathered 20. And can’t support them. And never will. The ultimate deadbeat dad. But I bet there is more support among MRAs for him than for a female who unexpectedly got pregnant and then continued the pregnancy."
You bet there's more support for him among MRAs. We recognize that there is one idiot man, and 11 idiot women. You appear to only see him as being at fault. Somehow the women got a pass in your tirade.
So yes, you could say we are more supportive of the man, but I would say we are less likely to condemn him and him alone.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Hatchett seems to have figured out the only sensible strategy for a male in this country.
Give up on any chance of custody,
Give up on any chance of retaining any savings so as to live responsibly,
Give your seed to all takers, and
Hope/guess that some of your children or grandchildren will take care of you in your old age so that you won't be living in poverty like the typical man who has one or two kids and is then looted in court, sold into slavery, and alienated from his kids to they want nothing to do with him.
I say the man is a genius.
He has 21 shots at having someone actually care about him 20+ years from now.
The government is inherently corrupt in its war on families, so much so that responsible people are being restricted from reproducing by the punitive economic brutalities perpetrated against them by the state.
This man has found a way to outflank the states criminality against fathers, and not have his rights to reproduce stolen from him by the state.
A genius.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Ok, so Robert Franklin thinks that a guy who fathered and can’t care of 20 kids by least 11 different women is somehow better than a woman who has 14 kids from one man. One of the reasons being that the children all have mothers to take care of them????
Lets see 14 kids divided by 1 parent equals 14
And 20 kids divided by 12 parents equals 1.6666
So yes simple math shows us it is better
Well, someone’s got to since no-condom man won’t.
And what about the no BC women? Oh thats right women can never do anything wrong according to you
If he makes minimum wage, I’m guessing they do too, if they work at all. So he’s actually no different from Octomom, is he? Worse, really,
Lets see octomom has no job, this guy does - That at least on difference
And Robert Franklin’s second reason is that the women had more contraception available to them? Oh god. How can you seriously use that as an excuse?
Womens
1 Pills - dozens of viaietes
2 Patches
3 Shots
4 Implants
5 Morning after pill
6 Surgery
7 Abortion
8 Adoption
9 Abandonment
10 Murder - I added this on due to the number how arent punished foe killing their children
Mens
1 Condems
2 Surgery
MRAs love to pretend that a handful of options for women and 2 for men mean that men are not responsible for pregnancies. That is immature. Would any of you accept that excuse from a guy who impregnates your daughter? (You probably would, actually.)
Women are masters of their own bodies, what happens to them is entirely their responibility. These women chose to have sex, the chose to not use BC, they chose to continue with sex once he said no to condems. Tell me something how is it that a man is responsible for the choices women make?
Funny how angry MRAs get when one woman has one baby on her own. This idiot fathered 20. And can’t support them. And never will. The ultimate deadbeat dad. But I bet there is more support among MRAs for him than for a female who unexpectedly got pregnant and then continued the pregnancy
Seriouly can you not read? Quoted from Robert Franklin in the post above - should be easy enough to find its the first paragraph talking about this man
"Let me say clearly that Hatchett's behavior is transparently irresponsible. As a poorly-paid blue-collar worker, he cannot possibly support all those children. He cannot possibly contribute his fair share of support to them, and he knows it. His behavior is outrageous."
Yea, I can see how someone out of touch with reality would find that statment supportive
May 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am
jeana said: Funny how angry MRAs get when one woman has one baby on her own. This
and funny Jeana how angry YOU get when ANYONE suggest a woman own up to her responsiblity. Like most of the ninnies from NOW you hold men AND ONLY men responsible for a pregnancy. Guess you would agree then that women need to be protected because they are TOO STUPID to take care of themselves.
I don't think that way - i think women are capable inteeligent beings.......those with your viewpoint seem to think they are anything but.....and need to be protected.......so whose holding women back??????
May 29th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I must have missed the part where these people all lived together in a commune, all working together and taking care of each other’s kids. No, Deadbeat Dad does nothing, provides nothing, is nothing but a sperm donor. Each woman takes care of one or more kids herself, physically and financially. How dishonest can you be to even pretend that 12 people are taking care of 20 kids. 1 female is taking care of 1-who knows how many kids. And loser dad does nothing.
And lest you think I am excusing the women, I’m not. They’re obviously as trashy as the man. Although he’s far more trashy, having impregnated so many women. So all of you need to stop pretending that I support the women. I think they’re stupid. But that doesn’t excuse the man’s behavior. And just because you can find a woman somewhere who had more kids with one man doesn’t make her worse. Plus, doesn’t Octomom have mental issues? Deadbeat Dad is just a loser. So actually, he’s much worse than her.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
lujlp,
To even include abortion, abandonment and murder as forms of birth control is disgusting. By murder, do you count the men who murder their pregnant girlfriends and wives that we hear about in the media? What about the men who murder their kids so they won’t have to pay child support? And those who murder their kids just to get back at the wives? And abandonment? Men are great at that, aren’t you? And as far as abortion goes, men encourage, demand, force and pressure females into having them, so don’t even try to act as if it’s totally out of your hands.
And I don’t care if women had one million forms of birth control. Men STILL need to be responsible.
And yes, Robert Franklin really went out on a limb saying that this guy was irresponsible and outrageous. But then he resorted to a childish “but Octomom is worse” and gave lame reasons. And all of you are right there with him. You’re a bunch of irresponsible babies.
But keep it up. Don’t trash this man; commend him. Because father’s rights/MRAs have SUCH good reputations. This feeds right into people’s perception of you people as a bunch of irresponsible men who think with their you-know-whats, who don’t want to pay child support or be bothered to even wear a condom but who want to have sex with whatever comes their way.
You would have much more support and maybe even a little bit of respect if you could be honest. For once. Instead of your perpetual “woman is evil, man is a saintly victim” mantra.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
This is a totally irresponsible guy. What I hate is the article, as usual doesn't come down on the irresponsible females.
None of them were married to this guy? None used many of the birth control options available to them.
Why do women have out of wedlock children over and over and over and over and over again? Because they get paid. Stop the money and this crap will stop.
Another thing the media and feminists never seem to announce is that: Who determines if, when and where sex will take place??? The woman!!!! She has the greatest say regarding sex. Start holding women accountable and stop treating them like they have amnesia!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Lifetime TV and Hallmark
Jeana says: "To even include abortion, abandonment and murder as forms of birth control is disgusting. By murder, do you count the men who murder their pregnant girlfriends and wives that we hear about in the media? What about the men who murder their kids so they won’t have to pay child support? And those who murder their kids just to get back at the wives? And abandonment? Men are great at that, aren’t you? And as far as abortion goes, men encourage, demand, force and pressure females into having them, so don’t even try to act as if it’s totally out of your hands. "
PK responds: Jeana, your screed above reminds me of Lifetime TV and grrl films such as "Sleeping with the Enemy" that portrays white women as helpless victims of rich men. It's so wonderfully at odds with reality much like the Hallmark channel in the opposite direction with "white women marry rich guys and live happily ever after"
Jeana, us men are "great" at abandonment because we have limited legal rights to the child (often not even being notified) and massive obligations while women often have these children precisely to get welfare and "child" support. MRA's are gaining traction in the media, slowly but surely, as single mother becomes synonymous with "welfare queen" in the public's minds.
And women are great at abandonment too since they got "safe havens" built to avoid the children dying at the mother's hands. Eh?
I burst out laughing at your notion that the media doesn't cover stories about men killing their pregnant girlfriends or wives. Yeah, Lacy Peterson's death didn't get ANY coverage at all. Are you kidding us? Indeed, perhaps you're engaging in a bit of preemptive worrying that if men aren't doing such things more often, you'd be surprised. Can you imagine how full the "safe havens" would be if men got default custody and women were ordered to pay support? They'd have to ship out the babies in U-hauls!
May 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
The Bachelor
My wife and I are fans of the Bachelor and Bachelorette programs because they're a combination of all the trashiest elements of pop culture: The romance novel, the Playboy channel, and Survivor. Something for everyone!
One of the smorgashborg of benefits feminism promised or hinted for women was the idea that they could get a stud if they liked too. The traditional sacrifice women were expected to make was that to get a man to support her, she'd have to compromise on looks somewhat. But the survivor program capitalizes on this fantasy women have that they can get a Doctor or Jet Pilot whose ALSO great looking just by rolling literally out of bed and the mansion. And a choice of them at that.
How does that tie into the present discussion? The consolation prize feminism gave women was that if they didn't get the perfect hobby job, or a decent looking husband who paid the bills, they would at least get to be the welfare queen. They could shag some decent looking guy but not have to be obligated to be a wife and deal with wifely duties. I consider the whole exercise to be rather silly because a husband, even a minimum wage earning one, is a lot less trouble than a child. Maybe they aren't geniuses at childcare, but it helps to have someone at home to at least watch the kid while she might run to do a few errands.
Jeana, I'm not excusing this alley cat father by any means and will add that I wouldn't recommend a daughter or female friends to associate with him. But that's the point: Feminists and modern culture ENCOURAGES women to rut around with such losers as a measure of empowerment. This guy got action because the women gave it to him including gestating his children for 9 months. Why should women have abortion rights if it's argued that they're helpless baby making vassals who are at the whim of men? I'll be the first to say I don't agree with what happened and that the state should prohibit such behavior when it's clear that the parents are financially irresponsible but that would get the ACLU going.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I was discussing the fact that women have almost all sexual choices and power in relationships with a female co-worker the other day.
I explained that women have more choices and that sex is different for men and women.
Having been feminized, she said she didn't think that what I was telling her was true. She stright out told me this.
I had to make up examples to show her they are not the same.
1st one-She could go out of our building and start hitchiking on the busy street outside.
Within 100 yards of walking, if not 100 feet she could pik up a guy and have sex.
She could get out and keep walking and repeat this as many times as she liked.
I could go out and hitchike just like her and propbably never be picked up by a female and offered sex. She had to agree with me.
2nd one- She gets to decide If, when and where sex will take place. At first she disagreed. I said if your signifigant other wants sex at your moms house, or in the morning when you don't think you look sexy, or in a car-which may be uncomfortable for you. You say what? No. She had to agree. Every woman has the power when it comes to sex. Women way more miss use there sexuality than men-they just get paid for it.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I was discussing the fact that women have almost all sexual choices and power in relationships with a female co-worker the other day.
Careful there! You might be getting a call from HR soon!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Patricia Williams is another ninny who writes for the Nation Magazine, like Katha Pollitt. Those good hearted people at the Nation are all about "sharing the wealth" or more specifically taking money from men and giving it to women. The name for it is Feminism. Of couse she advocates people having children they cannot afford. That is because she expects me to pay for it.
As for Octomom and Hatchett, they are perfect for each other.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
PK,
As usual, you are way out there. So no point in further feeding your manic frenzied brain. Feminism encourages women to date losers? I didn’t know that. And I didn’t say the media didn’t cover men who murder their pregnant wives & girlfriends. I said it did.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
David M,
Men are not neutered little wimps who are commanded by women, much as you’d like to believe you are. Men also decide when, how, if, etc. sex is had. The nice ones listen to their partner. So?
And females being able to snap their fingers and get a guy to have sex with them kind of doesn’t speak very well for the man. I’m not sure what your point is.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I left this at the newspaper site:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I can't post all I want to say in 1000 letters - so I'll cut and paste to a Father's and Families site:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3761#comments
Comparing this man with Octo-mom:
"Not everyone thought Suleman's decision was wrong, though. Feminist Patricia Williams, writing in The Nation, called criticism of Suleman a "perfect storm of eugenics." "
and comparing to this guy:
"But it is less outrageous than Suleman's for at least two reasons. Suleman is a single woman and she and she alone will have to care for and support her 14 children, at least until the state steps in which we assume will be soon. Hatchett fathered his squad with at least 11 women. That means there are 12 people to support the childen, to change their diapers, feed them, bathe them, put them to bed, read to them, etc. Twelve people can do that with 21 children. One person can't do that with 14."
Now, I wonder - is ANYONE advocating that Octo-mom go to jail because she can't support her kids?
------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope it sparks debate. I hope no one minds I referenced this site or used their words. I did not have the character limit left to give credit, but I did put it in quotes so as to show they were not mine (though I totally agree).
Steven
May 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I can’t believe that only one of you mentioned that the guy was irresponsible (but then immediately whined about how women have babies over and over and over, completely ignoring this man’s own 20 babies).
You guys can twist anything around to show how you’re really the abused ones. And constantly blame females, while exonerating males. I bet that many of you think that girl in Austria who was imprisoned and repeatedly raped by her father & who gave birth to 7 kids of his was a lot to blame. I bet many of you could find some reasons to gloss over what he did. And then you’ll blame feminists for the horrors they’ve brought to western civilization.
Is it ever possible for any of you to ever ever ever criticize a male without immediately finding a female to lay most of the blame upon?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Once upon a time, before the modern economy and social welfare state there was a reason a stigma was placed on someone who had a child out of wedlock. We like to blame religion, culture, patriarchy or whatever else that can be used as a scape goat. The real reason is that it fell to whatever family and maybe small community that person was part of to pick up the slack. There was no welfare, AFDC, WIC, etc. This is why the reaction is the same no matter where you go albeit with a local twist. It is just human nature.
What is happening now is that the society has broken down to the point where there is no pressure society place on the Octomom's and Hatchett's of the world. In fact it is the opposite. We spend millions funding someone elses mistakes as if this were some act of God like a toranado or fire. We cannot do anything about it other than just shut up and pay our taxes. Personally, I would rather have a better library in town rather than pay for Octopuss clutch. Ironically when we say anything we are viewed as moralizing "conservatives" or religious nuts rather than simply someone who has better things to do with my money.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Jeana,
Tsk tsk tsk,
You make this SO easy. Let's see what you said shall we?
Jeana Said:
"To even include abortion, abandonment and murder as forms of birth control is disgusting. "
------Yes it is. How come you don't speak out against "safe haven" ABANDONMENT laws?
And, I know opinions vary, but abortion is killing your CHILD.
We include murder because while abortion is legal in California, Drew Peterson, who murdered his pregnant wife (which WE deplore btw) got a DOUBLE life sentence.
Double standard much there Jeana?
------------------------------
But she continues .... Jeana said:
"By murder, do you count the men who murder their pregnant girlfriends and wives that we hear about in the media?"
------Yes we do, and the media VILLANIZES them, but when women do it they TRY TO UNDERSTAND why she did it. She is often charged with a lesser crime, possibly given a mental internment instead of prison, and excused as having "some disorder".
So, WE agree Jeana, but what you want is for the double standard to keep applying and you can't stand that men are saying no.
No means no Jeana, even though you're a women it applies.
------------------------------------
Jeana asked:
" What about the men who murder their kids so they won’t have to pay child support?"
--- Yea, shame about that. It's wrong. Hey, one question for ya Jeana - riddle me this genius : Why do you think the Gov't passed safe haven laws? Because women who could not be bothered to take care of their children and stuffed them in dumpsters needed a break, an excuse, and a legal remedy. So feminists advocated that less kids would DIE Jeana.
-----------------------------------------------
Jeana asked:
"And those who murder their kids just to get back at the wives?"
And that has NEVER happened with women - who then claim "post partum depression"?
I don't hear you saying a word about it. Don't look now but your double standards are showing.
-------------------------------------
" And abandonment? Men are great at that, aren’t you?"
---- Hey Genius - riddle me this - how many babies are put up for adoption each year by women? Give me that number, come back and debate me on abandonment. But don't forget to bring your "but, but, but, ..... that's different" mantra - because, princess, you aint wearin' no clothes.
----------------------------------------------
Jeana opined:
"And as far as abortion goes, men encourage, demand, force and pressure females into having them, so don’t even try to act as if it’s totally out of your hands. "
1) "Encourage" : you mean like ... I dunno, want to be a PART of the discussion and have some say in it. Wow, how brutish of us. And you really can't see your sexism, huh?
2) "Demand" : Oh, we DEMAND do we? When women demand a child and pester us and belittle us, and use character assassination in public and with friends - you know Jeana that favorite high-school honed tactic of indirect attack and using the power-by-proxy of the crowd or the state - how come you don't say a THING about women who do that.
How exactly does he "demand"?! Does he say "I want it, or I'm out"? Gee, women have that option already. But, dare we peasants speak to our betters with the double XX chromosome and voice our wants, and not put up with a woman's unilateral decision - I guess that's "abusive" in your book.
Abuse to Jeana is not giving princess what she wants and demanding to her is speaking your mind and not getting steamrollered into what you don't want.
And you STILL can't (read: won't) see how sexist you are?
3) "Pressure" - yea, ok, must be more of that "emotional abuse" of saying no. Once again Jeana - men are allowed to say no, and no means no. Despite my XY chromosome genetic deficiency I have a right to say no.
Don't you?
---------------------------------------
Jeana, your princess entitlement attitude of bigotry and one sided vision is fun to play with, but really sweetie, the adults are talking now. Go and read your Ms. Magazine and write angry convoluted conspiracy theories in your diary about the "patriarchy" while we adults try to actually make equality mean what the dictionary says it means.
Nothin' but love for ya.
Steven
May 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Jeana the sexist attention junkie asked:
"Is it ever possible for any of you to ever ever ever criticize a male without immediately finding a female to lay most of the blame upon?"
Absolutely. And you can find it in a lot of threads on Glenn's site.
But, my retort would be ONCE AGAIN TO REVERSE THE GENDERS:
Can YOU do that with women - and please, do link a post (even to another site) where you roundly condemned a woman w/out mitigation or excuse.
Until then, your sexism is just so blindingly obvious that I'll keep poking fun at you.
Steven
May 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
L. Steven Beene II,
I think safe havens are wonderful. So why would I speak out against them? So what if killer man gets a larger sentence for killing his 8 month along kid? Shouldn’t he? It’s next to impossible for a woman to abort late term, regardless of the circumstance, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Unless you think he got a raw deal. After all, the wife must have somehow asked for it, right?
I’m not going to argue with the rest of your rehashed MRA-talking point post. Believe what you want. Men are such helpless little sweethearts, aren’t you? Perfect in every way. Never harming a woman or child. Valient knights in shining armor. You amuse me!
Oh, and L. Stevern, since you and pretty much every MRA here don’t actually pay attention to anything I say because your minds are already made up, look at post #11: “And lest you think I am excusing the women, I’m not. They’re obviously as trashy as the man.”
I know that goes against your belief that feminists don’t ever criticize other women, but I do so when it’s called for. Which is a lot. But MRAs never criticize men. Unless the man is praising a woman for something. Then they gang up on him.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Geez....
Jeana:
"By murder, do you count the men who murder their pregnant girlfriends and wives that we hear about in the media? What about the men who murder their kids so they won’t have to pay child support? And those who murder their kids just to get back at the wives? And abandonment? Men are great at that, aren’t you? And as far as abortion goes, men encourage, demand, force and pressure females into having them, so don’t even try to act as if it’s totally out of your hands."
Far more women have abortions than men do what you say above.
When men do those things they are severely punished. Therefore, society does not find that acceptable. Abortion is legal. Women do not go to jail for abortion.
You CANNOT compare legal options versus criminal ones.
Though if we add in the criminal ones: women kill children more than men AND are punished less. Women are punished less for killing their partners.
Just because you hear about 1 thing more in the media doesn't mean the other thing doesn't occur. The media provides the information that it thinks will get the most viewers NOT what is most accurate. So talking about murdered women at the hands of evil men does that. Talking about the murder of babies by poor innocent women...not so much.
Basically when men do bad things...the media demonizes them. When women do bad things...the media seeks to understand 'why' in order to not hold her accountable, or to mitigate her responsibility. That's what sells papers and gets viewers...doesn't make it accurate though. Makes the women viewers feel good about themselves.
I have known a few people to have had abortions and I have known the men involved. In EVERY single instance all the men did was say "What do you want to do?" (or something to that effect). I am sure any man who tried to force a woman to abort would be accused of DV and severely punished.
As for who control when to have sex...
There is a saying that women decide whether they will have sex with someone within the first 5 minutes. While not completely true...and minds can be changed...there is some truth to that.
Octomom, her sperm donor, her doctor, this guy, and all his baby mamas are all irresponsible, reprehensible, etc.
Jeana again:
"I bet that many of you think that girl in Austria who was imprisoned and repeatedly raped by her father & who gave birth to 7 kids of his was a lot to blame."
NO ONE here would say that. That situation is completely different.
I know this is a tough concept: consensual sex is not the same as rape.
I don't know why I bother. Jeana the majority of sex that anyone women has is consensual. Rape is the EXCEPTION not the rule. All of the these women had consensual sex with this man...
No one forced anyone to have sex. No one forced anyone to not use birth control. No one forced the women not abort their pregnancies. Most of the women have more than 1 with him. So they each chose to have sex, not use BC, and not abort a second time.
Brittany would be proud "Oops, I did it again"
May 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I'll just sit here and watch the show .... and munch on my bon bons.
If y'all need a referee, just yell
May 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
.... and my ruling will be completely unbiased *cough*
May 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
To post 25 by Jeana:
You hate men who abandon, but love safe haven abandonment laws.
Yea, and that's called a "cognizant dissonance" holding two diametrically opposed ideas to both be true while not seeing or being able to see (or not WILLING to see) that it's impossible to hold both ideas to be true.
I could go into more detail, but for you I'd need crayons. Sorry bub, you torpedoed yourself with that one.
----------------------------------------
Gina's straw man that she somehow "misunderstood" that I thought Drew Peterson "got a raw deal" is funny. She sets up the straw man (an argument I never made, but attributes it to me) and then takes a swipe at it because it IS a repugnant argument.
No, the point sweetie, was that women who kill their unborn children get financial aid and a legal pass, while a man goes to prison for murder.
Also, my point was about child murder which I extended to the unborn and then showed the double standard.
They didn't teach logical / critial theory in your publk skool or "womyn's studies" echo chambers did they?
-----------------------------------------------
"I won't argue with your rehash of MRA" part.
You mean you CAN'T. I can say that authoritively because if you COULD you often DO. And when you, in the past, have seen a poorly expressed thought, or a bad idea, you had NO PROBLEM going over and over and over and over it.
But, I mention a few simple ideas for debate:
1) Abandonment - to include adoption #'s, safe haven #'s, and also those children often foisted off on the woman's parents or realitives that never seems to bother feminists.
2) Children murdered by parents. I'll bring the CDC slide show and the graphs, you bring your ideology and we'll have us a grand ol' time.
3) Children abused by parents: Same as above.
(If I'm going to fast, stomp twice)
4) Hell, I'll even go into the "men are such innocent sweethearts" minefield with you - but actually we MRAs try to avoid the "victim olympics" that sexist bigots like you seem to engage in regularly. We can debate how "privledged" men are who who's getting the short end of the stick.
At the end of the day good men and women are BOTH being victimized, but until a site like Glenn's existed men had little input. Sorry to bring in truth to your power, but hey, it's entertaining to watch someone's false core beliefs being stripped away one by one and watching her stick her fingers in her ears and go:
"It's not true and you can't make me admit it, nyah, nyah, nyah"
5) We do promote good, valiant, strong, independent, reliable men. And ... that's bad how!? I mean you seem to want us to do that - but I guess only at your beck and call and only on issues that benefit you.
Sorry. You've fallen under the delusion, reinforced in our femi-centric society, that we need YOU to validate OUR beliefs in order for them to be true, or even for us to be allowed to have them.
That time is over. Get a clue.
6) "Feminists criticize other women" schtick. Yea, sure, the ones who wander off the plantation. Sara Palin, Condi Rice, and Carrie Prejean come to mind.
But, really, you mean LEFTY socialist femini-supremacist women? Nope, never. And the ones who do are given the time honored swarm/pack attack and/or shunned.
Does that help or should we get a sexist to English dictionary for you?
Steven
May 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Steven,
Nice try to pin abuse and murder on women. That nonsense only works with MRAs. There was an attempt at talking about child abuse statistics not that long ago, but the thread was hijacked about a ridiculous side issue and nobody ever answered discussed anything relevant. It’s always “more women commit child abuse than men!” without any recognition that women are much, much more likely to be caregivers. Like I said in that thread but was ignored, more men die in mining accidents than women. I guess that means that women should be miners since men aren’t that capable of not getting hurt. Also, given the fact that men are rarely caregivers of children, the rate of abuse (and let’s not forget rape) is pretty darn high. But no sense in arguing since you won’t listen. “How to Lie with Statistics” is the MRA’s best friend, isn’t it?
“No, the point sweetie, was that women who kill their unborn children get financial aid and a legal pass, while a man goes to prison for murder.”
Financial aid and a legal pass? What are you talking about? The government pays us to abort? Are you mad? Men rarely go to prison for beating a fetus out of their pregnant girlfriend. So get real.
“but actually we MRAs try to avoid the "victim olympics" that sexist bigots like you seem to engage in regularly”
Oh God—this one made me shake! ALL you guys do is poor-mouth all the time. That’s your sole reason for existence. All you do is feel sorry for yourself and every other man. Like this lame Deadbeat Dad loser. You guys can’t defend him fast enough. I can’t wait to tell people about MRA support of this guy. I actually expected a tiny bit of criticism of him. I don’t know what I was thinking.
Oh, and Sarah Palin is a GREAT example of a feminist, isn’t she? A feminist who denies birth control to those who need it, who preaches abstinence till marriage (and as a result has a daughter who’s a teen mom), and who thinks that raped and pregnant girls should be forced to have rape babies. Yeah, we’re SOOOOOOOOO hypocritical for not celebrating her! Tell you what—you can have her!
Steven, you’ve amused me enough for one day. Keep up the good work.
And to the rest of you—keep defending this loser Deadbeat Dad. It’s really going to help your cause!
May 29th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Oh please, to this I must respond.
Jeana asserted:
"“more women commit child abuse than men!” without any recognition that women are much, much more likely to be caregivers."
Ummm, wow, nice bait and switch. Two things just happened.
1) You just ignored and excused the CHILD VICTIMS. They are now an after thought. "Since more women are caretakers" - um, so if more men were caretakers it's excusable to abuse children? Are you off your medication?
2) So, in essence you ADMIT that if men had equal custody then men would be equally, not not more abusive than women.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Once again, since you honed your responses in feminist echo chambers wherein only a certain degree of thought is allow down certain dark corridors of unpleasant truth - you never had an informed man make the above logical deliniation.
No need to thank me, I'm here all week.
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeana made light of:
"Like I said in that thread but was ignored, more men die in mining accidents than women. I guess that means that women should be miners since men aren’t that capable of not getting hurt. "
No, I don't know of the hijacked thread, but your lack of empathy towards men dying is pretty apparent.
Hey ever heard of the "glass ceiling"? I know you have, and now you get introduced to the never-before-mentioned-in-feminist-circles-idea of "the glass cellar" where no women bitch nor complain that they can't get into the exciting and high paying field of endeavors wherein you may make high pay, but your chances of living to collect a retirement drop dramatically by simply taking the job.
And, for whom, o-enlightened-one, do you suppose those men take those jobs for pray tell? I mean, your wanting-it-all-and-a-corner-office-with-air-conditioning butt could not possibly be willing to consider that maybe more women should be herded into such dangerous but high paying jobs that men endure to put food on their families table.
Naw, but you want to be a fighter pilot, or a CEO, or a neurosurgeon and you'll sue to high heaven if denied. And voice your concerns and protest, and e-mail and letter write and go to symposiums "for women only" about how you're getting a raw deal.
Really - just grow up. Men are DYING. These are your sons, neighbors, friends, and fellow human beings, and you see it as a freaking side-line to your navel-gazing-ideological-seminar smoke filled coffee house discussion about how you're oppressed.
MEN - ARE - DYING. Show me one, just freaking ONE, thread, from this site or any other wherein you've shown one ounce of compassion to that very real fact.
You not only didn't have this fact that MEN ARE DYING register in your "equality minded" brain - you thought it was a freaking distraction.
Ideology meets reality in Jeana's world and they are complete strangers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeana pulled the "Show-stopping-moral-absolute-RAPE-card":
"Also, given the fact that men are rarely caregivers of children, the rate of abuse (and let’s not forget rape) is pretty darn high. But no sense in arguing since you won’t listen. “How to Lie with Statistics” is the MRA’s best friend, isn’t it?"
Ahhh, I wondered when you'd bring up rape Jeana. It's a feminists hole-card (pun unintended). Here's the thing, I'm about to prove you care very little about rape victims, but more about an ideology:
1) How many rapes occur in the US? Reports vary, but there seems to be a demographic missing .... hmmm, what could it be. MEN IN PRISON maybe?
2) The 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act found that at LEAST 10% of the male population in prisons are raped. Not raped once and given a sympathetic feminist ear nor feminist funded counselor. Nope, often they are raped and raped repeatedly. Sold into slavery and traded for a pack of smokes.
3) Since there are, approximately 2.6 million incarcerated people in the US in prison, and 90% are men, that means that 260,000 of these men are raped.
4) Since they are raped repeatedly, lets be stupidly conservative with our numbers, and say they get raped 10 times, that's 2.5 million rapes PER YEAR of men.
So, little miss concerned about rape - where WAS that thread on this board or any other that you even BROUGHT THAT UP? Wot? Crickets chirping?
You care only about women - that makes you a bigot. You do NOT care about rape victims unless in furthers your ideological sexist bigoted world view.
Sorry to break it to you - but how come, as concerned as you claim to be about rape, that you did not even know these facts, nor ever post, protest, nor get involved in this travesty?
See - we MRAs care about ALL rape victims. Kids, women, men, gays, blacks, browns, Muslims etc. Yea, I know it's an alien concept, but try to keep up.
****Oh, and the rates of rape by fathers - it's the LOWEST of all molestations. Usually sweetie, it's mom's boyfriend that she brought into the house that is the most likely offender.
Yea, and statistically, this is from the CDC, a child is safest from molestation in a monogomous heterosexual married home.
No need to clap, your hands are to busy covering your ears from this "heresy".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhh, the several lies wrapped in one argument: Jeana the Uninformed falsely stated:
"Financial aid and a legal pass? What are you talking about? The government pays us to abort? Are you mad? "
Two words - Planned Parenthood.
Jeana the Ignorant stated:
"Men rarely go to prison for beating a fetus out of their pregnant girlfriend. So get real."
Really, read up on cases from California to Massachusetts where that has exactly happened.
Your ignorance is not my problem.
There is this new invention called Google - try it sometime.
------------------------------
Gotta run - post more in a bit.
Steven
May 29th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
jeana Says:
May 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
David M,
Men are not neutered little wimps who are commanded by women, much as you’d like to believe you are. Men also decide when, how, if, etc. sex is had. The nice ones listen to their partner. So?
And females being able to snap their fingers and get a guy to have sex with them kind of doesn’t speak very well for the man. I’m not sure what your point is.
---------------
In classic liberal fashion jeana you have totally mischaracterized what I said and then commented on your mischaracterization. jeana I know you have a blind agenda and no amount of facts or statistics will change your mind. You want to believe something so bad that you will change it or twist it to make it digestible in your mind.
Months ago you informed me on this very blog that you were prejudiced against MRA's. From what I recall Its been the most honest thing you have said on this blog.
As for not knowing what my point is-it's because you don't want to know. Anything that goes against what you want to believe is rejected and twisted in your mind.
I was able to explain it to my co-worker. She said Yea, I never thought about it like that before.
People without fixed opinions and open-minds can actually learn things because they don't always have a predertemined mind set.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
One last comment for jeana- Believe it or not sexuality in males and females is different for both genders. Males more visually oriented. Females more emotional. It's called differences.
Feminists will teach you there is no difference, except the way we are socialized.
This is idealism.
Evolution made it so men and women have evolved differently. This is realism.
This is what I was explaining to my co-worker who could get it once it was pointed out to her.
Same as men evolving to be physically stronger than women.
And women nesting by fixing up there homes. Differences.
Evolution= Realism.
How we wish things were= Idealism
You are an idealist in your thinking. I wish this would help you in your thought process but I know you are a lost cause.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Steven,
You are doing such a wonderful job here. Keep up the good work!
I'll add my own thoughts tomorrow, I have plenty of them but it has been a long day and I'm burned out for one night.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Actually, according to the NIS-3 the lowest rates of abuse (per household) exist in single-father homes. Biological parent households are a close 2nd best. Worst (3x as much abuse per household) are single-mother homes.
Blows Jeana's theory out of the water, doesn't it?
May 30th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Humbly, a lot of people give me props - and truly I thank them. I am not sure how to respond.
I'm one of those "in case of fire, break glass" kind of guys.
For my own personal reason I joined the MRA groups:
1) TWO false allegations of rape.
a) I dated a lot. Some women who dated a lot, even carelessly, got raped more than once. I equate the two because it is imperative that we know that those false accused and those women who were raped may have placed themselves in positions of vunerability, as anyone does when dating, and had someone violate (hate that word in context and by over use) their trust
b) I'm a survivor - and a believer in God. I often to not mention my own belief system as it is not relevant to MRA issues (it is, but I'm not here to force that issue) - God never left me.
c) I do not hate WOMEN, but in fact, understand how we often have different communication modes. I can be abrasive and not "political", but to many who sought to do so, with the best intentions, sold us (MRAs and those around them) a false bill of goods. Women are wonderful, difficult, beautiful, annoying, cuddly, prickly, supportive and destructive people. The operative word is PEOPLE. With all our frailties and foibles - but dang if they aint wonderful to cuddle next to and absolutely necessary for my life in so many ways. And I make no apologies for retaining my romanticism, while not being a sucker.
2) Long story short - because many know - I was not the guy who feminists love to crap on who was a father who disputed custody and who didn't see his kids. Allegations were made and denials were issued .... no. I was the young boy denied his father.
a) Got to know my father 21 years later - and love him. Of those out there struggling as fathers, - be non-judgemental, bite your tongue, keep loving, and hopefully someday they'll see so much horsesh*t that they realize "the other side" (as often one must chose to LISTEN to a NCP) just loves them. They'll still bithch and wonder "why didn't you fight harder". Wait for the right moment - it'll come - one hopes - and it might not come today or even next year - but in the end - my dad is someone I have no words to describe in how much I crave his voice, his counsel, or his help. - He's a voice of calm and reason I value. I can't make it much simpler than that.
b) As sons and daughtes of this disaster - to me - maybe it's my mindset - for a good father (subjective as that may be), - for who reached out, for one who risked thepain of incarceration for me, and it must have ther right setting to talk about - for the father who, after YEARS, was just trying to get to know me - It'll take time to gel.
He needs to know you love him as much as you're afraid and can't find the right words to ask - didn't you love me - who are you, and how come you didn't call.
The questions aren't fair - but be ready to answer them.
lastly
3) Lets get serveral things straight - and I apologize if I speak out of turn or assume to speak for others:
a) MRAs are not sexists. I can find far more one sided, and more importantly unchallenged anger on women's sites. Being told "get back in the kitchen" is laughable in that you want men to honestly contemplate that (which a man should) - compared to the real work discrimination and "dick cutting" and "give me YOUR money for yet another femi-spremicist ieal or utopia wherein men are just userful sperm donars w/out rights'
b) MRAs want the laws apllied eaually.
lastly, and in no particualr order - men NEED their children - as much as childen need their fathers.
Steven
May 30th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
So, seems we are comparing the life choices Ms. Suleman and Mr. Hatchett. Let’s start with what they have in common. They are both totally irresponsible. They are both selfish and self-centered. Suleman claims she was only trying for one more, having 8 was as much of a surprise to her as to anyone else. My response to that is she already had 6 and to try for even one more is still irresponsible and is not OK. To go back further, she should not have had the first 6. To deliberately bring a child into the world without the benefit of both parents is irresponsible. People think of having children as a God given right, but they don’t think of it as a responsibility. I’m getting off track again.
She is one person caring for 14 and his situation has 12 caring for 20 or 21. (He isn’t even sure how many kids he has?!) In either case, it is the children who are suffering. He should have been more careful and she should have put more thought into what she wanted to do. The mothers of Hatchett’s children should have also been more careful. Even though this case is extreme with so many children and mothers, it is not that uncommon. One person I work with has 6 children with 5 different women, two of which he was/is married to. He barely keeps up with his child support. This morning I caught a movie on Disney Channel called “Quints” (I was doing housework and only caught parts of it). The household had dad, mom, and young teen daughter when the quints came along. Granted it was just a movie, but to see what they went through to take care of these babies, well let’s just say I wouldn’t want to do it. I can’t imagine trying to take care of 14 children at once and seriously doubt that Suleman is doing it well.
From reading the article linked: I don’t understand how putting someone in jail for not paying child support is supposed to help the situation. I suppose the original intent had been if they are threatened with jail time they will come up with the money. Might have made sense in theory, but in practice it doesn’t work and only makes matters worse.
This line kills me, and it is something else these two have in common because they both said it in their own words: "I didn't intend to have this many. It just happened," Hatchett said.
I guess I’ve been wrong all this time; pregnancies really do “just happen.”
May 30th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
JeanB
"This line kills me, and it is something else these two have in common because they both said it in their own words: "I didn't intend to have this many. It just happened," Hatchett said."
Yeah that got me too! I HATE when people say that.
Pure BS!!!!! For both men AND women.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
"Oh God—this one made me shake! ALL you guys do is poor-mouth all the time. That’s your sole reason for existence. All you do is feel sorry for yourself and every other man.Like this lame Deadbeat Dad loser. You guys can’t defend him fast enough. I can’t wait to tell people about MRA support of this guy. I actually expected a tiny bit of criticism of him. I don’t know what I was thinking."
Here's what betrays your sexist bigotry Jeana. You go after this guy with words like "lame", "deadbeat" and "loser", but the best you can do for the other 11 women who mothered children by him is "irresponsible". You can't bring yourself to condemn with passion a woman as easily as you can a man.
If we MRAs were as bigoted as you, we would be blaming the 11 women and giving the man a pass. We would be ascribing all sorts of discreditable motives to them, maybe calling them all tired old spinsters taking advantage of this poor guy just so they could get some relief from their baby rabies. We would be calling the women lame losers and deadbeats, and making a pretense of balance by calling the guy "irresponsible".
But no-one here here has done anything like that. Only you.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Jeana says: "As usual, you are way out there. So no point in further feeding your manic frenzied brain. Feminism encourages women to date losers? I didn’t know that. And I didn’t say the media didn’t cover men who murder their pregnant wives & girlfriends. I said it did."
PK responds: Guilty on the second charge. The moment I hit "submit" I noticed that you had said media covered these incidents rather than not covered. Doh! My error, guilty as charged.
But on the first point, think about it for a moment: Isn't the point of feminist independence to be able to marry without an icky man just because he's a provider? As I pointed out, you seem happy to have done what most women in the 1950's took for granted: Getting a man to live up to the Wally Cleaver role. So if feminism was about women not HAVING to do so, what's the point?
If feminism is about seperating the notion of women having to marry for financial support, rather than her own self-satisfaction (love, but also, looks) then won't such women wind up with "losers" by the definition of sexist women? Say what you like about sexism, but traditionalist men who lived up to the breadwinner role tended to be less of a "loser" than liberated artist types living in their mother's attic!
May 31st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Comparing this man to feminist women - He chose to have sex with a willing partner. He did not agree to a marriage, and he did not agree to a baby. Pregnancy is not a punishment for sex. No one can compel someone against their will to be a parent. He basically did what women chose to do all of the time - have sex with no obligations or concerns about being a parent.
Barak Obama, regarding abortion rights - "the government must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves" Of course, the only person of concern is the woman. Not the child, and certainly not the father. Choice for themselves, only. Zero responsibility, only Mommy Martyrdom.
Barak Obama again, when begged to stop abortions "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby." Clearly, liberals and feminists consider a baby to be "punishment" for sex. But only one gender can be punished - women have the choice to opt out at any time AFTER coitus. Men do not. Hell, even men who didn't have sex with these 11 women are having to pick up the tab, including the court costs and costs of incarceration. Someone has to pay the federal matching funds that the attorney general wastes on this case. I'm curious to know, specifically, what his various support orders add up to
These 11 women had several choices - They had sex with THIS man that resulted in a pregnancy, in some cases more than once, and knew full well that he was incapable of a relationship and even of holding down a job, YET DECIDED TO BRING A CHILD INTO THIS WORLD ANYWAY. At some point, you have to realize that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
This man is essentially judgement proof. He has nothing to take, no lifestyle or career to ruin, will never have anything above a minimum wage job, and has so many people that he owes child support money to that even bankruptcy can't help him. It can't get any worse for him. If some woman takes him to court and he goes to jail, it actually deprives other women of their money. He's raised indegence to a high art form.
Right, these 11 women were just minding their own business and ZZZAP! they're pregnant by this man. Just a bolt from the blue. "well, how did THAT" happen?" What, is this some third world country like Scotland where babies arrive by the stork?
Comparing this man to Suleman - This man and 11 other women chose to have sex, and these 11 women decided against all better judgement to not use birth control of any kind, not to insist on any birth control by their partner, did not take advantage of the several forms of post coital birth control to avoid being pregnant (morning after pills to avoid implantation), did not use any form of abortion, did not chose to place the child up for adoption, including the safe haven facilities.
Nadia Suleman chose, deliberately, to become impregnated, not once but several times,, without any form of intimacy or accountability to another adult by way of using a donor and a doctor. In the last incident, she chose to become pregnant with several babies at once, deliberately, not only with no job of her own, but also without a partner willing and agreeing to fill that role, nor even one that the state can compel via paternity. Since we can't NOT provide care for selfish idiots, the state got stuck with a million dollar tab for the specialized care she and the babies required.
Really, comparing this idiot with Suleman is weak. There's far more in common with Suleman and the 11 idiots who carried 20+ children to term and somehow expect some meaningful contribution from "somebody" to pay for their decision.
If these women want the last laugh, they should all surrender custody to this man. There's no way the state's going to compel them to pay any meaningful support, and even if it did, dumbass would have to hand it right back to them. Fat chance of that happening - there's far too much social currency in the Mommy Martyr role.
Suleman has certainly embraced the Mommy Martyr role. She fully expects that generous people will reward her decision, and/or that her fame will somehow enable her to support these children. Desmond Hatchet doesn't expect to receive a shower of support from other people. Quite the opposite, actually, and Hatchet is well aware that this was not the brightest decision or a desireable outcome by any streach of the imagination. The women that decided to bring these children in the world are considerably closer to Suleman's point of view than Hatchet's.
I don't condone what this man has done, but of the dozen adults involved, he's the most honest and responsible. You can't apply a double standard of behavior - these women had far more opportunity to affect the long term outcome than he ever did. Any feminist who says to him "well, you had sex, you assumed the risk" is spewing pure hypocrisy.
We will continue to have a problem with single moms so long as we continue to reward women for being single moms. The only meaningful reduction in single moms came as a result of welfare reform. When we stop enabling people for being screwups, we'll get a vast reduction in people screwing up. So long as they're entitled to be a subsidized screw up, we're going to get exactly what we pay for.
Lets see, 11 women decide to carry 20 or 21 children to term with no chance of a meaningful, contributing father from the outset. One guy chronically has sex with stupid women who have more lust than sense. Yeah, it's HIS fault. Their bodies, their choice, HIS responsibility. We can't question women's immoral decisions, or the moral hazard surrounding the modern feminist welfare state, but we'll call men 'irresponsible' when women unilaterally chose to bring children into this world?
June 5th, 2009 at 8:38 am
I have done extensive research in this area, and wrote a book about it.
Fatherlessness is the result of cultural engineering on the part of feminists, the gov't, and the hidden "powers that be", to undermine the family so that women can control and destroy men, and then all become totally dependent on Uncle Sam for their upkeep.
What are the prospects for the children of ms. Suleyman, or mr. Hatchet?
We are witnessing the final stages of the New Order-families redefined and limited to mothers, and men as visitors who pay support.
Get ready, it's going to get worse.