Sunday, October 29, 2006

Misandric TV

Take a look at this clip from youtube (Hat tip: Richard's Midlife Crisis) from a segment on the Dr. Phil Show and read the comments -- many are spot on. The video clip shows the willingness of this misandric psychologist to pander to his female audience without any regard for men's Constitutional rights or equality of reproductive choice. Unbelievably, Dr. Phil takes the position that a man should be forced to be a father, even when his girlfriend lies to him about her medical condition, birth control and the level of responsibility she is willing to take before they have sex. I love the way Dr. Phil never talks negatively about women who lie to their sexual partners. If a man lied to a woman in a similar fashion, you'd better believe that he would be ridiculed and held up as a loser.

Yes, these daytime talk shows like Dr. Phil are silly and not worth watching for the most part, but that does not mean that they are harmless. All of us who care about equal justice in the courts for both women and men would do well to pay attention to the cultural messages that shows like this send out, that the men and their lawyers who speak up about reproductive choice are wimps and good-for-nothings who get their jollies by berating an innocent woman who had no idea that she could get pregnant. Men have few choices in today's arena of reproductive rights and must be fathers and pay the price for a good portion of their lives. Funny, this used to be the case for women in the "dark ages" and now it is seen as wrong -- for women. It is just as wrong for men.

Men must stand up for each other and demand justice by using alternative media (like Youtube) to get the word out that this type of sexist "justice" is unfair and will no longer be tolerated. Until then, men's rights in the area of reproductive choice will continue to erode along with their bank accounts. Young men like the one in the video clip with Dr.Phil are paying the price for men's lack of support or interest in men's rights. Apparently, the young man's views are a joke to the host and females in Dr. Phil's audience but they should not be to the average American male. Perhaps it is time for a man's version of The View or other countershows that teach the American public that men's issues, views, and rights are as equally important as women's in the American cultural and legal system.

Update: Dr. Melissa has more thoughts on men's reproductive rights--they shouldn't have any lest they want to be tagged as pathetic losers:

Men are the new victims. Welcome, men, to the horde of pathetic losers claiming their life is ruined by someone else. Wallow along with the rest of us, will you? Isn't that nice? Dr. Helen thinks men should unite and fight for their rights. It's already happening. And it is crazy. In this men's movement, no thought is given to the children. Oh, yeah! Them....


At least one of Dr. Melissa's commmenters sees the irony in her view:

I agree that abortion has become another way for men to use women and manipulate them. However, to play devil's advocate, my friend's marriage dissolved when his wife aborted their baby, even after he begged her to have it and promised that he would take custody and full care of it. I have always wondered why--even as her spouse and the father of the baby--he had absolutely no rights do determine whether the child lived or died. And yet if he had been Joe One-Night-Stand and she had the baby, he'd be legally responsible for life.


Yep, just another pathetic loser who wanted some reproductive rights--shame on him!

295 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it true "Doctor" Phil doesn't have a Ph.D.?

Aside from that, what a grandstanding, misandric jackass.

I thought it was bad when he exploited that boy with behavioral problems - taking his mother on national TV and telling her he has all the "characteristics of a serial killer". If the boy's problems were serious they became more so after that. They might as well have promoted the show with: "See Dr. Phil Tame the Future Serial Killer with a Whip and Chair!" What a junk science jackass.

9:43 AM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that he does indeed have a doctorate in psychology. I have also read that he is an amazing legal consultant. He can tell how a jurist will act on a case by looking at them. It is apparently an amazing talent.

I also read that he hates doing therapy because he does not like people or have much patience for them. And the final point I read was that he was sanctioned by his state licensing board for having a weird dual relationship with a patient.

The report alleges that the Dr. hired a patient to work in his office. OK, this is a violation of the APA ethics which are rather strict about not having dual relationships with patients. It gets weirder. Turns out, Phil was paid by the patient's father to give her the job. In that way Phil could keep an eye on her while pretending to hire her. She did actually work in the office, but he was paid to hire her. So he was lying to her and manipulating her while engaged in an unethical dual relationship with her.

When questioned about the events, Phil says "I guess no good deed goes unpunished." No personal responsibility allowed, just an offhand sounding quip to brush away any seriosu criticism. This is what I read, I am not stating them as facts, but allegations of the article I read. So no legal actions please.

But I think people like Dr. Phil because he is rude to people that his viewers do not like. It is kind of like the Jerry Springer show in that.

10:02 AM, October 29, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 9:43:

I believe that Dr. Phil does have a PHD--he was a key speaker at last years American Psych Association convention (one reason I didn't go!) but nonetheless, his pandering to his audience and PC behavior is appalling to me at times.

12:03 PM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I simply don't understand the Dr. Phil resentment, especially since I do not view him as misandric in the slightest.
He advocates responsible reproductive behaviour from both men and women.

Men are on the hook in a different way than women, but women are obviouslythe hook in reproductive matters in other way that men are not. It is not an outrage that the law directly and indirectly lays down incentives to stay in a monogamous relationship with one partner of the opposite sex, and it is not an outrage that the law in general provides that born and living children be supported by both partners who produced them, and not an outrage that the law recognizes individual rights of bodily integrity and personal autonomy which a woman may excercise at will;rights that would apply to men IF they could conceive and bear children, rights that apply to all competent adult individuals and are not taken away from women simply because men cannot conceive and bear children and find themselves in a perfectly equivalent physical condition.

Men and women are not the same in reproductive matters, and the special circumstances of the creation of new human beings underlies all the unfairness you complain of.

The fact is, men and women should by all means possible and permissible be encouraged to contain their desires within the state of marriage. Sex makes people, and men can not be permitted to engage in behaviour that produces people without being on the hook for the people they make.
Women may lie or be mistaken or a miracle may occur and a women who says she can't conceive or bear a child may in fact do so if she comes in the right kind of contact with the seed of a male. Men who want to guarantee no children will result from an act designed to produce children may rely upon various imperfect methods of birth control or sterilization. But there is no rational basis for excusing men from fatherhood if they fertilize a woman.

She may control the pregnancy in ways he cannot, because he is not pregnant.
He has not conceived nor will he bear a child; she has. Her health and well being and bodily integrity is at stake in ways his is not. ONce the child is born, there may even be a stronger biological tie between mother and child, and at least during the infants tender years she may have a greater claim to a special biological relationship. Men have rights to their born and living children, however, and the children have a right to their fathers. They have a right to support of mother and father.

This isn't misandry, and I don't understand why you think men should be able to cry FRAUD!!! and abandon born and living offspring when they have engaged in an act designed to produce children with a woman they don't feel particularly attacted to, with no desire to produce a child...knowing full well that a child may be born, even if the woman says she can't conceive. Society must demand people contain their sexual desires or pay the price of supporting any people they bring into the world.

12:57 PM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Society must demand people contain their sexual desires or pay the price of supporting any people they bring into the world."

When people tell feminists that, they're called anti-woman. When people tell men that, feminists applaud.

2:47 PM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said "Sex makes people, and men can not be permitted to engage in behaviour that produces people without being on the hook for the people they make."

This is nonsense.

In the west, sex does not lead to babies. It is women who **choose** to have babies.

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm

3:29 PM, October 29, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

We are crying fraud because fraud was perpetrated in these cases. Men who impregnate women should be held responsible, no person is arguing against this. Women who fraudulently entrap men to impregnate them should be held guilty of fraud.

Types of fraud would include: Stating that they are using birth control when they are not; stating that they are barren when they are not; stating that she is committed to terminating a pregnancy through abortion if she becomes impregnated by their union when she will not; statimg that a man is the father of a child when he is not.

Fraud, plain and simple. Gender doesn't enter into it. For the record, I am antibortion and the proud father of four children. My eldest daughter is from a previous marriage and I pay three times the court mandated child support to her mother because this helps relieve the stress in her mother's life and whatever relieves her mother's stress relieves my daughter's stress. And my daughter spends half her time with me, my wife, and our triplets. So legally I could weasel out of child support all together. But that would be wrong.

So where you and I should share much common ground, we are in complete disagreement about fraud and the consequences thereof. I never participated in an unwanted pregnancy because I made behavioral choices that minimized the chances of that happening. Had an unplanned pregnancy occured, I would have stepped up and done the right thing for my child. Fair is fair and fraud is fraud.

Trey

7:01 PM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Western women have 100% control over whether or not they have babies.

7:31 PM, October 29, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Tmink:

There is a big difference between "stating" words versus getting a statement written down, signed and notorized. If all a man had to do in order to avoid paying child support was say that a woman "stated" that she couldn't conceive many men would grow noses a mile long.

In the sales world we go by a credo, TAL, "They all lie". When it comes to he said/she said in the bedroom, in the heat of the moment, people say what they have to say to get the desired result and say what they need afterward to avoid the consequences.

10:05 PM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Phil panders to his primarily female audience just like the rest of worthless daytime TV.

As your husband observed, Youtube is rapidly acquiring a reputation for censoring "unacceptable" (= un-PC) viewpoints. "Surprisingly" enough, these viewpoints include typical conservative material, but never liberal tropes or messages of hate and jihad from the Islamists.

As ever, freedom of the press only belongs to those who own a press.

10:09 PM, October 29, 2006  
Anonymous anonymous 12:57--you're not alone said...

So, did the girlfriend lie to him or did she change her mind? Many people don't know what they think about parenthood until it happens. Can't make a legal case on what she THOUGHT she would feel about parenthood. That goes for guys, too. Plenty of guys out there who discover--through an unplanned pregnancy--that they love being a parent. A man who would argue "...and she can't make me!" AFTER the fact is just as wrong as a woman who aborts. Not as murderous, but just as wrong.

Anonymous 12:57 is correct, although this is the wrong crowd for that kind of clear argument.

11:01 PM, October 29, 2006  
Blogger Captain Holly said...

I don't partcularly like Dr. Phil, and I'm not surprised that modern American women have become so duplicitous and arrogant, given the massive legal advantage they have in the family courts.

Nevertheless, every guy should realize that if he sticks his penis into a vagina that he's not married or even slightly committed to he's taking a huge chance. Men should automatically assume that all women are lying to them, at least until they know them well enough to be able to judge otherwise.

Bottom line, if you're screwing a girl you're not married to you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences.

12:16 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Captain Holly said; "Bottom line, if you're screwing a girl you're not married to you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences."

I've got a better idea. Why not fight the laws and the people that make men responsible for something over which they have ***absolutely*** no control?

12:30 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Fenrisulven said...

I would mind a law that gives me some control over my own DNA. She can abort it without my permission. She can also force me to pay child support. I have no "reproductive rights", so I'm not entirely sympathetic when she complains about hers.

2:14 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

corporal holly-
(just demoted you)

Nevertheless, every guy should realize that if he sticks his penis into a vagina that he's not married or even slightly committed to he's taking a huge chance. Men should automatically assume that all women are lying to them, at least until they know them well enough to be able to judge otherwise.

Bottom line, if you're screwing a girl you're not married to you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences.


Absolutely not. Because the fraud and abuses go beyond that - they trot out the lies, false claims, etc. during divorce proceedings as well, so marriage won't save anyone. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but there are some very pissed off men out there that should be pissed off - because they're right.

2:26 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

Let's ramp it up one:

A teacher molests a 13 year old boy and gets pregnant or a nurse molests a disabled man and gets pregnant: The law is the same in both cases. She gets the baby he gets the child support order.

Now, that means that no fertile male has the right to say "I will not become a father." This approaches slavery and is clearly violently unfair. The whole thing gets worse.

A single man has immense trobules getting a vasectomy. Women who sue WIN, so Dr's are very reluctant to do them on single men: Dr's want a female's premission before doing a vasectomy. Women cannot face this problem, no court will allow it.

Thus, according to the law, males are not human enough to have the right to control their own bodies, their own sperm or their own choices.

THIS, when it comes right down to it, is the law Dr. Phil supports. It is the law the majority of our female population appear to support.

How then should any male have any respect for anything any woman stands for? Think about it ...

5:13 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:30 AM said...
"I've got a better idea. Why not fight the laws and the people that make men responsible for something over which they have ***absolutely*** no control? "

This post, this thread of comments, and especially Anonymous12:30AM are unbelievable. "men", "responsible", "absolutely", "no control". What does that say about men? They can't control their sexual desires, sex activities, etc.? A man can use a condom every time and they will have absolute control. A man can get a Vasectomy and have absolute control. A man can practice the conservative method of birth control, no sex out of wedlock, and have a lot of control, but yes not absolute. This argument of men and their lack of control is laughable if it was not so sad.

6:14 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 6:14:

What you really believe is that men do not have the right to have sex with women without being "punished" for it, just like women in the 16th century. Turn your words around--"A woman can use birth control every time and they will have absolute control. A woman can have her tubes tied and have absolute control. A woman can practice the conservative method of birth control, no sex out of wedlock, and have a lot of control." So a man must be forced to marry before he can have sex, or get a get a vasectomy which means he may never be able to have kids just because in his younger years he may want to have sex? Should women do the same? If so, then you must also believe that women should be "punished" for sex and forced to have a baby no matter what.

6:54 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:14 here.
Gee, Helen. I was responding to anonymous12:30AM's statement, "Why not fight the laws and the people that make men responsible for something over which they have ***absolutely*** no control? "

Men do and can have plenty of control. They are just dependent on women. Also, in your response you failed to mention men using condoms for birth control. Maybe your retort re: "being "punished" for it" was regarding condoms.

I am sorry you feel women as so strong and men are so weak and under women's control. I just dont' believe that men are that weak. I believe men can be in control of their sexual activities.

9:18 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen said, "Turn your words around--'A woman can use birth control every time and they will have absolute control. A woman can have her tubes tied and have absolute control. A woman can practice the conservative method of birth control, no sex out of wedlock, and have a lot of control.'"

Um, yeah. Turn it around either way and it makes sense. How about if both men and women live that way?

9:52 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anybody, male or female, who engages in sexual activity with someone with whom they adamantly do NOT want children has the ABSOLUTE responsibility to take measures to make sure that doesn't happen. It's not hard-- use condoms AND withdraw, use the pill (patch, shots). AND for those men, and there appear to be many, who indicate they don't EVER want to father children, get a DAMN vasectomy.

Unless you do these things, YOU are responsible--no fair whining about how you were tricked. Only an IDIOT (or a liar) claims they were defrauded about such things. For chrissakes, it's not even just about unwanted pregnancy, it's about STD's etc. What-- am I supposed to feel sorry for people who relied on the other party's word that they didn't have an STD? I don't think so.

What happened to personal responsibility, Helen?

"What you really believe is that men do not have the right to have sex with women without being "punished" for it..."

What-is there some fundamental, constitutional right to have sex with whomever you choose, without having to face the consequences or take any personal reponsibility? Somebody please let me know. If so, I've got some booty calls to make.

Andrea

9:52 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Anonymous 6:14:

"I believe men can be in control of their sexual activities."

And what about the outcome of their sexual activities? Do you believe women should have one set of rules, men another? If so, why? Why don't you promote women being in control of their sexual activities?

9:52 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Kent said...

So a man must be forced to marry before he can have sex

I am failing to see the problem here. Must be my theoconservatism showing.

10:02 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Captain Holly said...

Absolutely not. Because the fraud and abuses go beyond that - they trot out the lies, false claims, etc. during divorce proceedings as well, so marriage won't save anyone. I don't know how this is going to shake out, but there are some very pissed off men out there that should be pissed off - because they're right.

Look, I'm not denying that the current system of child support and family law is stacked against men -- I watched my brother's divorce, and it wasn't pretty or fair. The whole system is in serious need of reform.

But if most women are the Lying Jezebels that you describe (and I agree there's plenty of evidence to support your position) why on earth would any rational, responsible man have sex with any female that he doesn't know and trust conmpletely?

I mean, if it's stupid for a young woman to go to a frat party by herself, get drunk, and have sex with men she's barely met, why then is it not also stupid for a young frat boy to have sex with a drunk girl whom he barely knows and who assures him that she's on the pill? How smart is that?

Bottom line is if you can't trust women, and the system is stacked in their favor why then would you choose to play their game in the first place? That's not unfair; that's plain stupid. Either change the rules, or be very, very careful about whom you swap DNA with.

10:12 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

What-is there some fundamental, constitutional right to have sex with whomever you choose, without having to face the consequences or take any personal reponsibility?

Yes, apparently, there is. If you're a woman.

Anyway, I'll admit, that I do occasionally watch Dr. Phil. I'm strangely fascinated by the type of people who are willing to air their dirty laundry in public, and think that somehow a talk show host is going to help them. But, while I disagree with Dr. Phil in this, in his defense, he does take the majority position on this issue.

However, having seen several other episodes of his program, it's pretty clear that on pretty much every issue, he absolves women of the same responsibilities that he holds men to. For example, if a man expects his wife to do some housework if she doesn't have a job, he's wrong. After all, in the big picture, does it really matter if the house is a mess? But, if the wife expects the husband to make more money, well, then he should spend more time in the office or get a second job if need be. If a man stays home and takes care of the kids, he should be looking for a job. If a woman stays home with the kids, well, then being a stay-at-home mom is the equivalent of holding three full-time jobs, or some such nonsense. I've seen him take practically the opposite view on the same issue based on whether the complainant in the case was male or female.

Basically, his entire view is that men exist to be beasts of burden for women, which I suppose is much easier to do if you're a psychologist with your own talk show.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why any man would ever go on that show. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, he will almost always come out on the losing side.

So, personally, I do enjoy watching the show, but I think Dr. Phil is somewhat of a jackass, if for no other reason than the fact that he doesn't ever say anything that isn't 100% predictable to anyone who's watched his show at least a few times. And yet, guys still go on the show thinking Dr. Phil is going to take their side.

10:32 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Dr. Helen,

Thank you for putting this topic up. I see that there are no shortages of harpies feeling quite 'liberal' today. I am sure that you have already heard of the book that I am about to mention but for those who have not, I would heartily recommend it as it lends itself to this issue.

Dr. Daniel Amneus: The Case for Father Custody

The femes should realize that the gig is up and when the courts realize that they can no longer rule according to the zeitgeist,group-think or to Betty Friedan, then these women will weep biterly but it will all be for naught. Actually, what is more likely (please do not miscontrue what I am saying) is that the court will ban gun ownership for all divorced/custody-paying fathers so that they will not seek retribution on the mothers. I think more repressive measures will arise before it all ends---but when it ends---across the entire spectrum----watch out women.

10:32 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Captain Holly,

Even women who one is familiar with can get pregnant like the Dr. Phil case--the young man in question had an ongoing relationship with his girlfriend who told him she was not able to have children due to a medical condition and also used birth control pills. So being careful of whom you "swap DNA" with is not always safe either. The real problem is that the law is unequal in this area. Women can choose to be a mother, or not. Men have no such rights at all.

And BTW, the game is called life. What do you suggest--that all men who do not want to marry and are straight stay home and beat themselves off until they are 80 so that they will not impregnate women? What kind of life is that?

10:37 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

I should also add one thing: I think Dr. Phil is a male chauvinist of the worst sort. I think he believes that women, quite frankly, can't be held to the same standards as men, simply because they are women. Men must be logical, responsible, mature, motivated, etc., but women cannot be expected to exhibit these same behaviors. Because they're women.

So, a guy must take responsibility for himself AND for the women, because she can't take responsibility for herself (obviously, because she's a woman).

I honestly think that's how he views things, which is why I find it so ironic that his audience is filled with women applauding his male chauvinism.

10:44 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Rizzo,

Or perhaps the female audience is applauding Dr. Phil's enabling of their full and "extra" rights without responsibility. What a deal!

10:48 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And BTW, the game is called life. What do you suggest--that all men who do not want to marry and are straight stay home and beat themselves off until they are 80 so that they will not impregnate women?"

Um, no. We suggest using a condom (and withdrawing, if you're really paranoid) or getting a vasectomy. (If you dont ever want to get married, chances are you dont want to have children either.)

Andrea

10:56 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

True. But as I said, I find it ironic, not surprising.

In fact, he holds pretty much the same views as most feminist organizations, although perhaps for different reasons (although probably not as different as most feminists would like the rest of us to believe). Feminists want more rights and fewer responsibilities for women because it's (supposedly) good for individual women. Dr. Phil wants the same thing because we can't expect anything else from women anyway. They're like children.

10:59 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Atticus said...

I don't see the extra rights without responsibility that women have. Do you mean the right to gain 60 pounds during pregnancy? The right to morning sickness? The right to raise children alone with nothing more than financial support? The only part of parenthood that can be forced on men is the financial part. I have yet to see a woman give birth and then force the father to raise the baby alone, to juggle jobs and laundry and supper and babies waking in the night. Women who have babies are the responsible ones. Are you actually saying that women who abort are doing something responsible?

11:03 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Atticus,

No, the women who have children and take care of them are responsible but they at least had a choice. There is no such equivalent choice for men. And you underestimate the financial part of caring for a child. Imagine a twenty year old having to pay 500.00 a month for child support for at least 18 years. That is no small feat. If it were, women would have no problem doing it. Many mothers whose ex-husbands or boyfriends have custody bale out of child support or never pay it in the first place.

11:11 AM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

Women who have babies are the responsible ones.

I agree. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Are you actually saying that women who abort are doing something responsible?

Obviously not. I can't even imagine where you got that idea.

I have yet to see a woman give birth and then force the father to raise the baby alone, to juggle jobs and laundry and supper and babies waking in the night.

That's because adoption is another option. In some places she can put the child up for adoption without even notifying the father (another "right" that women have).
Around here, there are hospitals that allow women to drop off their newborns, no questions asked. She doesn't even have to leave her name.

Anyway, it's always assumed that we are talking about the right for men to avoid responsibility (one women already have), but we are also talking about the right for men to take responsibility (another one women already have).

11:30 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

" Her health and well being and bodily integrity is at stake in ways his is not."

BS. When women starting having to register for the draft, you may start to have a point about equality when it comes to idssues o bodily integrity. Or are you really trying to equate nine months of pregnancy to a 12-month comabt tour in Iraq?

@ Anonymous 9:18

"Men do and can have plenty of control. They are just dependent on women......

I am sorry you feel women as so strong and men are so weak and under women's control."

Is this supposed ot be a reasoned argument? You contradict yourself from onew sentnece ot the other.

Andrea,

"What happened to personal responsibility, Helen?"

Her point is that it is supposed to apply equallly. You seem to have a problem with that.

11:55 AM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have yet to see a woman give birth and then force the father to raise the baby alone, to juggle jobs and laundry and supper and babies waking in the night.

My mother left. I was raised by my father. Just saying.

12:07 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

My experience in reading the posts is that women are not to be trusted. How sad. I know that the topic is reproductive fraud committed by women, but it still saddens me.

And Blogger does not have the space to cover the posts about fraud committed by men with the purpose of getting laid. So the whole thing saddens me.

It raises the question, who won the sexual revolution? I read that you cannot trust a woman to tell you the truth about getting pregnant, I know you cannot trust men to mean what they say when they are trying to get in your pants, so who won. Or have we met the enemy and he is us?

Helen asked a good question, something like "So then a man will have to get married to get laid?" Pardon my faulty recollection. Well, it used to have to be that way. Or it used to supposed to have been that way. Or something.

I find the entire subject disheartening. It makes me feel so fortunate to have a good marriage to a wonderful woman. She is beside me now, pardon me while I close and tell her that I love her and that I am so lucky to have her in my life.

Trey

12:23 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous cassandra said...

What I'm getting from all these posts is that men really, really cannot be expected to control their hormones. It's a health issue, doncha know; a man's got to get laid or he'll break out or get blueballs and who knows wht. It's just not fair or healthy to expect him to keep it in his pants.

And the women--why, you'd think they were genetically engineered to bear children or something. But that's deterministic, no?

1:04 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

It's a health issue, doncha know; a man's got to get laid or he'll break out or get blueballs and who knows wht. It's just not fair or healthy to expect him to keep it in his pants.

That's pretty much what I hear from all the people who insist that we must hand condoms out in high schools, or even middle schools.

And why should women need to have abortions? Why can't they just keep it in their pants? If they did, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

1:18 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jim:

"Her point is that it is supposed to apply equallly. You seem to have a problem with that."

I'm not sure what you mean by "it". Responsibility for the consequences of unprotected sex? Well, sure-- as I said, I won't listen to any complaints from any man or woman about an unwanted pregnancy occuring after unprotected sex. But I think these things are ALREADY applied equally. I mean, shit--the biology is different. And NOTHING can put the parties in the same circumstances. It's the woman who HAS to carry the baby, like it or not. She doesn't get to opt out of that and a man unfortunately can't opt IN to being the host.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with holding both parties equally responsible. I have given female clients the business when they want to tell me what a terrible person the father is and how he shouldn't have visitation. Unless he's a serious danger to the children, I tell them, "YOU picked him. Now live with the consequences."

But, again, I won't listen to any whining from either side and THAT appears to be what Helen is sticking up for. There is NO SUCH THING as fraud in these types of cases. Only failure to exercise good judgment and take personal responsibility.

The fact is--most men DON'T take responsibility for contraception. I like my boyfriend alot, but he almost never asks and sure as hell doesn't pay for it. They hate wearing condoms and they figure it's more trouble for her, so she'll probably take care of it. FYI, contraception is expensive, guys.

By the way, I don't have a problem with requiring both men and women to register for the draft.

Andrea

1:25 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

Dr. Phil panders to his audience of women. Whether intentionally or not, he show a heavy bias as can be seen in the two cases in the video.

What Dr. Phil most likely really cares about is being famous and making money. He's used his pandering to be quite successful at that.

1:32 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Atticus said...

Helen,

You said, "No, the women who have children and take care of them are responsible but they at least had a choice. There is no such equivalent choice for men."

At least the women had a choice between what? Murdering a baby or carrying it to term? Men have a huge advantage in this game and that is that they can become a parent and no one can tell. Women LOOK pregnant when they are pregnant. They don't have the luxury of pretending the baby isn't theirs. Without abortion as an option, men and women have the same choices to make--have sex and be ready for a baby or don't have sex.

As for that 18-year-old boy who fathers a child...wah wah waaah. Yes. Taking responsibility for a child is expensive. Do you think it is less expensive for the mother? How do you figure that an 18-year-old girl is coming out ahead in that deal if she's left raising the child on her own? Getting financial only helps with the money--it doesn't help with discipline and it doesn't help finish college and it doesn't give her someone to leave the baby with so she can find a moment to herself. These are lessons that every teenager should hear: having a child is expensive and time consuming and you have to think about the child before yourself. Parenthood is life-changing. Don't have sex unless you recognize that and are willing to accept the outcome.

1:40 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Captain Holly said...

Even women who one is familiar with can get pregnant like the Dr. Phil case--the young man in question had an ongoing relationship with his girlfriend who told him she was not able to have children due to a medical condition and also used birth control pills. So being careful of whom you "swap DNA" with is not always safe either. The real problem is that the law is unequal in this area. Women can choose to be a mother, or not. Men have no such rights at all.

Well, as I said earlier, I'm not going to defend the current legal situation. Men are clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to the courts and family issues, and the government support structures for women aren't even available to them.

For example, nothing sets my teeth on edge more than a local "domestic violence shelter" that helps X number of "women and children" each year. It's as if there is no such thing as violence against men, or if there is, then they "deserved" it or are just being wimps.

And BTW, the game is called life. What do you suggest--that all men who do not want to marry and are straight stay home and beat themselves off until they are 80 so that they will not impregnate women? What kind of life is that?

The problem is, Helen, there are NO rights that do not carry responsibilities with them. If a man wants the privilege of having regular sex with a woman then he must assume the responsibility for any potential offspring. Unless he can show he was coerced into sex or his donated sperm was used without his permission, he bears some responsibility.

And yes, what's wrong with abstinence? I didn't have intercourse before I met my wife at age 25; it wasn't that difficult. And I'm very glad I didn't have sex with one of my previous girlfriends, as she turned out to be a real psycho. Had I not exercised some restraint I could have had quite a miserable life to this point.

Now, I'm willing to let men take whatever risks they want to, as long as they don't affect me directly. But when the negative consequences of their actions inevitably occur, they should be willing to accept them. That's part of the game of life, too.

2:20 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are possible cases of reproductive fraud where the man had absolutely no responsibility. Like if a woman used the sperm from a used condom to artificially inseminate herself. And the case mentioned comes very close - claiming she was infertile and claiming she was using birth control.

tmink-

Helen asked a good question, something like "So then a man will have to get married to get laid?" Pardon my faulty recollection. Well, it used to have to be that way. Or it used to supposed to have been that way. Or something.

No - it used to be a world of bullshit. People getting together that weren't sexually compatible and having to spend the rest of their lives with an incompatible spouse. So you have a lot of men visiting prostitutes, with all that underground, deception, secrecy, scandal, etc. that entails. Then you have a lot of men with mistresses, which is de facto polygamy - except with little or no honesty or rights. Then you have a lot of misery and deprivation, basically for everyone.

Yeah - what a golden age, we really need to turn back the clock to the 50's or whatever the current age of sexually repressive nostalgia is.

2:26 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

"So then a man will have to get married to get laid?"

I forget who said it, but it was a line from a movie or something, but it went something like this: "Each generation believes that they are the ones that invented premarital sex."

2:29 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Evil HR Lady said...

The problem is more than just one over child support, it's that lying is seen as acceptable behavior in many arenas--especially sexual ones.

The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was no big deal because it was lying about sex. More students than not cheat on exams and assignments. Why do we not expect women lying about their fertility?

2:45 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait, if she claimed she was infertile, why in god's name would she need to be on the pill? If you bought that story, you're an idiot.

She told you she was taking the pill and, even though you REALLY don't want to have kids with her, you didn't care enough to use an alternate method of your own like a condom, just to be safe? Big consequences like that, but you just left it all up to her. Idiot.

Btw, check out the personals on craigslist. Particularly the "Men for Men" section. You'll see loads of married men or men with girlfriends looking for nookie on the side (with either sex).

It's all so inspiring.

3:05 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

To the ladies? (You know who you are)

The issue of reproductive fraud is not limited to a premarital case. There are innumerable women, who, now in their 30's and 40's have 'missed the train' so to speak and jump at the chance to marry any man since it is cheaper to marry, deceive him with reproductive control saying that she has ovulated, on the pill etc and gets impregnated. Now, we all know that once marriage has been contracted, that the openness to life is implicit (or that knowledge should be understood) but the woman in question simply wanted the ceremony of the wedding, the baby and she knows that the state, acting as surrogate father/husband (little girl running to daddy—incapable of stark responsibility) will rule in her favor if she persists enough with accusations of a slanderous nature—she then can secure the child, a nice check every month and the societal victory without reproof since the onus of responsibility and blame lies on the man alone. Now tell me that this is not the case. It happens all of the time. The women are out of control, they are narcissistic and they are seemingly as immaculate as they hoped they were in the womb of their own mother (who, by the way goads the daughter on in her quest to remove herself from the oppressive authority of the husband—thinking herself to be immaculate too.) Dear Lord, these are the individuals that we (men) entrust our offspring with. Quite frankly 'girls' you just don't get it or you don't want to be 'jugdemental' but the fact remains whether it is divorce (primarily initiated by women---yes, look it up) or a pre-marital tryst (is there marriage anymore?) the women are always in the cat-bird seat of all matters productive, juridical, societal approbative and with the care of children. (Even though women are more apt to abuse and neglect their children---yes, again, look it up) Men need to scorn the current stock of women, they need to refrain from all sensual contact and stop worshiping at the altar of femininity since we all know that the primary offering of these “priestesses” or Divae (Latin for goddesses—but a man dare not call himself a Deus) is the emotional and physical entreaties they employ to bypass the reason of men. Face it guys (and I am as heterosexual as they come) in the proportion that women today seek to beautify themselves and stay forever young, concomitantly they are becoming uglier within, due to their utter deprivation of virtue and authentic femininity. Let scorn be their name.

3:24 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're as heterosexual as they come, but you can't get laid to save your life. Hence the anger toward women.

3:30 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Anon 3:30

And you're as effeminate as they come (whether you are a male or female) thus you rely on the ad hominem for your rebuttal, which shows your rational ineptitude. By the way, who made 'getting laid' the criterion of happiness? For if you have made it so, your ineptitude is doubly condemning.

3:39 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

titurator veritatis:

Why do men get married then? I really want to know. Please 'splain.

As for avoiding "sensual contact", go for it. I suspect you already have, though possibly not by choice.

The bottom line is this-- men wont avoid contact. They want it too much. But while they're out here lying through their teeth, pretending they love a woman that they know they don't and possibly getting married simply to ensure the regular nookie then screwing around on the side too, they get their Hanes all in a wad about women with similarly low motives.

Hey guys, you get what you pay for.

It reminds me of a song by Salt and Pepa--"You showed me what to do/exactly what to do.."

3:43 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

Andrea,

"By the way, I don't have a problem with requiring both men and women to register for the draft."

I may be all in favor of men getting preganant, but for now neither of our wishes matter. The point is that the bodily integrity argument is inherently biased toward women in our society, not just in military sevice, but also in workplace injuries, street violence, the criminal justice system, on and on and on. We can change some parts and not others; the situtation is never going to be equal, so let's just drop the bodily integrity altogether. It's fine if a woman doesn't want to reproduce, but a little truth in advertizing would help a lot, maybe a tattoo acrsoo both cheeks "Does not want to breed". After that much of a warning no one would have any excuse for not getting the message. Or maybe a woman wants to breed, but just not with whoever is the lay of the momnet. Taht would call for a different tattoo.

Well, maybe not a tattoo.

3:59 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Western women have 100% control over whether or not to produce offspring.

You can argue all day long; but the **fact** will remain that western women have 100% control.

Sex does **not** lead to babies any more than does dinner at a restaurant.

A woman's CHOICES leads to babies.

And those choices are hers ALONE to make; legally, medically, culturally etc etc.

4:00 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Western men have 100% control over whether or not to produce offspring.

You can argue all day long; but the **fact** will remain that western men have 100% control.

Sex does **not** lead to babies any more than does dinner at a restaurant.

A man's CHOICES leads to babies.

And those choices are his ALONE to make; legally, medically, culturally etc etc.


Am I wrong? Wear a condom. Withdraw. Vasectomy (which is reversible btw). But TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. IT IS NOT MY JOB ALONE!

4:11 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

Western men have 100% control over whether or not to produce offspring.

You are wrong. This is not true. If I want to produce I child, I need a willing participant. I have no control over that.

Women don't even need a willing participant, just a sperm bank.

4:15 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous childfree male said...

well ho do you explain thr stories of women who poke holes in condoms, scrape out used condoms to get pregnant, then this.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html

so its all a mans fault then is it, and a woman has no responsibility then.

men have 3 ways, women 17,

men have abstinence, vasectomies and condoms, women.... have so many more... so its the mans fault then.. and women need not bother with anything.

thats the problem these women want the rights but no responsibility,

4:18 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are wrong. This is not true. If I want to produce I child, I need a willing participant. I have no control over that."

Oh.My.God.

You are an idiot. You are just like Eric Idle's character in Monty Python's Life of Brian who declares he wants to have babies. "Where's the baby gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?", they taunt him. And he becomes offended. So, being the revolutionaries that they are, they agree to fight for his right to have babies, even though he can't, which of course is not his fault.

Look, I'd love to be black, six foot tall and play in the NBA. Who do I blame for this travesty of justice?

You're a retard. In the meantime, I will fight for your right to have babies, brother. I mean, sister.

4:26 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

I was just pointing out where you were wrong, and the other commenter was right.

And you were wrong.

And very much an idiot yourself, if you want to play that game.

4:29 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

childfree male (thank god):

dude, if YOU bring the condom and put it on, she can't poke holes in it. if YOU take it off and flush it, she can't scrape it out. ('cause i'm sure that shit happens ALL the time.)

men have 3, women have 17 options for contraception? um, so invent some more, retard. i can't TELL you how pleased i would be if i didn't have to pump MY body full of strange chemicals just to make sure all i got was a nut off with you and maybe a case of the clap, rather than your abhorrent offspring.

4:30 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Rowan said...

It is true, men have very little choice. Why are they not working harder on the mens' pill? To those women who say they can't trust men to take it, then take your own to be on the safe side. This is no excuse to not make the mens' pill available. No one should force anyone to be a parent, full stop. Women have fought for many years for choice in this matter, why do they wish to restrict mens' rights? These bitches who lie and cheat for that almighty spawn are horrible, and no man should have to put up with it, and be berated at the same time. The WOMEN who do this WANTED to breed, therefore THEY should shoulder all the responsibility. If these men are not consulted, then it's nothing to do with them, pal.

4:31 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well rizzo, if it comes to that, there are egg donors as well as sperm donors. and surrogate mothers, so I guess that makes YOU wrong. Sure, you still have to pay for the egg and surrogate, just like a chick has to pay for the sperm.

4:32 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

Look, I'd love to be black, six foot tall and play in the NBA. Who do I blame for this travesty of justice?

And to point out further that you are an idiot, this misses my point entirely. The point has nothing to do with my wishes. I have no desire to change biology. The point is that men basically are at the whims of women, both biologically and legally, when it comes to child-bearing. I'm not complaining about the biology part (nor is anyone here), just the legal part.

Jackass.

4:34 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

A surrogate mother still requires a willing participant.

4:34 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Well, thanks to the evils of science (in contrast to the goods of science) soon we will have artificial wombs and then the women will be free! Free! Free! Free! What a joke, then with cloning we will create the 'perfect woman' and do with her as we please without that much vaunted responsibility, however, don't ask the ethicist if she has a soul. Then, we can do away with the 'real' women all together.

Hey girls!! Do you like that??? Well, if you don't reform yourselves that is a likely scenario of what may be---sounds like utopia to you? You better get your act together and finally figure out the difference between vocation and job in addition to what the greatest good of your nature is instead of using that good for your own aggrandizement or throwing away that good on the battle-field of 'choice.' Wake the **** up!?

4:40 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The point is that men basically are at the whims of women, both biologically and legally, when it comes to child-bearing. I'm not complaining about the biology part (nor is anyone here), just the legal part."

Jesus Christ, man. In the second sentence quoted you said you weren't complaining about biology, when in the previous sentence you just did.

Make up your mind. Jackass.

And a sperm donor requires a willing participant too.

You know, I agree with you, rizzo. THIS SHIT IS UNFAIR. I'd like to have children, but I'd like for my HUSBAND to be the one to carry it for nine months.

Let's make a LAW. Think God will listen?

4:45 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous ChildFree Male said...

Actually, you cannot flush condoms, as it is not good for the sewage systems. How are you to insure 100% that no scheming, manipulative breeding obsessed woman will not find a way to poke a hole in it. She could go to the box of condoms, and poke tiny holes in them through their packaging; she could even go into your wallet and poke holes in the condom there. You would have to keep the condom(s) with you literally everywhere, even in the shower to make absolutely sure.

Feminists see men only as a sperm donor, therefore they are exerting a great deal of pressure to oppress men by denying them the same reproductive choices as women. Anonymous, you are putting YOUR reproductive choices in the hands of men. I realise that you have to introduce chemicals and hormones into your body to insure no offspring, but that is what you have to do. Men do not even have this choice. {I am not a bio-chemist, a pharmacologist, or a medical doctor-I cannot 'invent' new forms of male contraceptive out of thin air. If these chemicals bother you so much, then you have condoms, tubals, Essure clips, or abstinence, exactly in the same boat as men. Doesn't sound great, does it?

4:45 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

Give Dr. Phil credit.

How many white men look good with a shaved head?

Besides me, of course.

4:46 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Mr. Lonely, does that line--"you better get your act together, etc." work when you meet women?

I thought not. Making it clear to the world that you are one crazy-angry dude is a sure way to a lifetime without friends. Men OR women.

4:47 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Hey Anon,

Not that I like the 'ebb n flow' of 'tit 4 tat' blogging but again you show your rashness: I am married with child. I just happen to see a reality that you, being a solipsist, have been blinded to.

4:52 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is relatively easy folks.

Not married to her? Don't fu*k her.

It's fantastically simple. I'm married with a child and I get hit on at work a LOT. I could have had 3 different girls at work by now. I love my wife and won't cheat on her. But If I were an asshole and did want to I still wouldn't. Because I don't know these girls from Eve and I don't trust them for all the reasons stated above.

Otherwise, you're responsible if she gets pregnant.

All the being said though, the way paternity fraud is rewarded in the US justice system is just sick. A woman can lie to a guy about the kid being his, and even if he finds out later that it's not biologically his and his devoted 'wife' was being serviced by 3 different guys, guess what? TOO BAD bro. You still have to pay for life because you 'assumed' responsiblity the first time when she pulled the wool over your eyes.

And what about just having oral sex with a girl and she takes the used condom and impregnates herself? Again, too bad, your sperm, your kid. Even though you never had sex and you explicitly avoided if for these reasons. Again, it's her power, her choice but your money.

Defend the above instances andrea or cassandra and I'll be amazed at your audacity.

5:03 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

I never, at any point, was complaining about the biology of it at all. Not in the part you quoted, not in any time before that In fact, I wasn't really complaining about anything. I was simply pointing out where your statement was incorrect.

Let's rehash shall we:

The above commenter stated that women have 100% control over reproduction. This is, for the most part true. One could quibble slightly with the 100%, but it's damn near close to it.

Then you stated men have 100% control over reproduction. This is not true. So obviously so, that I feel even more retarded than I apparently already am having argued with you about it.

And all of this misses the point entirely, which is that women still have close to 100% control after they get pregnant, where men have none. Yes, fine, whatever, the man could have kept his pants on. So could the woman. But let's assume the deed is done. The women now has three options: keep the baby, abort it, or put it up for adoption. The man has one option: deal with her decision.

This, basically, is the argument that has been laid out by others. I don't suppose you'll understand it, despite the fact that it's not that difficult. Your man hatred has made you lack any rationality when it comes to the issue. There are certainly good and rational arguments against allowing men to forgo their parental responsibilities after the woman is pregnant, but you haven't made any. I'm somewhat undecided on the issue myself, but it does surprise me how hostile some women are to the idea that men (and some women) might sometimes feel that men treated unfairly.

5:05 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

childfree male:

"Doesn't sound great, does it?"

Nope, but welcome to my life and it wasn't the women who started this complaint here.

My suggestion: withdraw, wipe it up and flush down the toilet. Besides, I like the money shot.

Face it, there is no excuse--though you all would desperately like there to be one.

5:12 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 3:05pm-

Wait, if she claimed she was infertile, why in god's name would she need to be on the pill? If you bought that story, you're an idiot.

She told you she was taking the pill and, even though you REALLY don't want to have kids with her, you didn't care enough to use an alternate method of your own like a condom, just to be safe? Big consequences like that, but you just left it all up to her. Idiot.


I don't know, I only saw the clip here and I don't watch that misandrist's show. But she could have spun it like she was being ultra-safe - "the doctor says there's little chance I can conceive, but I'm the pill just to be safe". He sounds like he was in a fairly involved dating situation with her, she could have lulled him into it over time.

5:16 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My suggestion: withdraw, wipe it up and flush down the toilet. Besides, I like the money shot.

Face it, there is no excuse--though you all would desperately like there to be one.


Bullshit - there is no excuse for fraud, reproductive or otherwise. You don't blame the victim of an elaborate robbery for not forseeing every angle, you lock the criminals up and collect the money.

Same logic here. Although I suspect men will start to be more careful about how they dispose of used condoms when word of things like this start to get around.

5:26 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rizzo:

"Then you stated men have 100% control over reproduction. This is not true."

I guess just by saying it, you think you've established a fact? Pray, HOW is this not true?

"And all of this misses the point entirely, which is that women still have close to 100% control after they get pregnant, where men have none."

Again, unsubstantiated.

"Yes, fine, whatever, the man could have kept his pants on. So could the woman."

Well, SHITFIRE! That's exactly my point, mate! And THAT, jackass, is THE point.

What is to be done after both parties have screwed up may be an interesting discussion, but that is NOT what we have been discussing. And it would be an unnecessary discussion, if just ONE of the parties did as they should.

But to address your non-point about what happens after, it may seem unfair that the choice of abortion or birth is solely for the woman to decide. (Adoption, BTW, is not a decision that can be made only by the woman.) But, as you and I have already discussed, biology is unfair and we are forced to deal with it. Perhaps someday, it will be possible for a woman to say, "You know what? I don't want it, but if you do--you can get an artificial womb and gestate it if you want." When that time comes, the law will change. As for now, the law is an imperfect solution to an imperfect situation. By definition, one or the other party must have their say and the other party's feeling about it will be ignored. So, the only question is, which party is that going to be? It's not hard to see that, biology and the current state of technology, that decision was left to the party who is most immediately and obviously going to be inconvenienced by the pregnancy and labor.

And, btw, I LOVE men. Just because you don't know how to argue a point, doesn't mean I hate men.

5:26 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

"(Adoption, BTW, is not a decision that can be made only by the woman.) "

False. No question drop boxes are available in lots of states.

"But to address your non-point about what happens after, it may seem unfair that the choice of abortion or birth is solely for the woman to decide.... But, as you and I have already discussed, biology is unfair and we are forced to deal with it."

Well, this is an interesting take on the question. You appear to be arguing that there is no need for a legal remedy for an inequality. There goes a century's worth of legislation to correct gender inequalities.

"And, btw, I LOVE men. Just because you don't know how to argue a point, doesn't mean I hate men."

Well, LOVING men doesn't mean you know how to argue a point either, obviously.

6:59 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

Oh yeah? Well, well... well you're a doo doo head!

*sigh*
I don't suppose we could get back to the topic at hand? You know, without rancor? It's killing what could be an interesting discussion.

7:09 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a woman gets herself pregnant and ***DECIDES*** to have the baby - a decision which is ENITIRELY hers - legally, medically, etc - then the prospective father should be asked whether or not he wishes to be the legal father.

If he testifies that he wants to be the legal father then he should also bear responsibility for the birth and also have equal access rights to the child.

If not, the woman should bear sole responsibility for the birth.

7:14 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous MS said...

It seems to me that the option to sign a simple contract when a couple start dating could settle this easily. How so? Since the woman has near perfect knowledge of her fertility AND has a number of choices even if she does get pregnant, she would simply declare that she wishes to relinquish the right to demand financial support for any children that result. If she does not sign and pregnancy results, the guy has absolutely no come back at all. There's no "she told me she was on the pill" or "she said he'd have an abortion". It's case closed. Pay up. The contract would hold for that couple in perpetuity or until superceded or nullified by later agreement, so it would only rarely need to be addressed. Honest women would gain because the contract gives them an opportunity to prove that they have no intention of defrauding their partner, and responsible men would gain firstly because the financial incentive for entrapment disappears and secondly because by having sex initially subject to, and then later without, the contract, they could demonstrate the commitment to a long term relationship and the acceptance of responsibilities that a women seeks.

Indeed it seems that as long as the contract is standardised and thus cheap - a simple notary public form perhaps - the only people who lose are those women intending to commit fraud or those so irresponsible and/or obstinate that they not only get themselves pregnant while in near total control of their fertility, but IN ADDITION refuse to take any of the options other than keeping the child. With the contract as an option, men need no longer be suspicious of decent women, and decent women can rest assured that they will not suffer unfairly for the actions of their crooked or feckless sisters.

7:32 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

I don't suppose we could get back to the topic at hand? You know, without rancor? It's killing what could be an interesting discussion.

That's what I would have hoped for, but apparently, I'm an idiot and a retard, so what do you expect?

Anyway, I apologize for my part in the name-calling, since I usually abhor such practices. I just get rather irritating when someone willfully misinterprets my point and then calls me a moron.

Back to the discussion at hand:

What is to be done after both parties have screwed up may be an interesting discussion, but that is NOT what we have been discussing.

Isn't this precisely what we have been discussing? Dr. Helen linked to Dr. Phil, which had a case where the woman was already pregnant and the guy did not want the child. Then several people, include yourself, have argued that he shouldn't have taken his pants off. Fine, but what to do now? Should he be forced to pay for a child he never wanted? Or should he be able to opt out?

I can see arguments for both sides, but saying he should have kept his pants on is kind of moot at this point.

In general, you'd probably find it hard to believe that I agree with you more than you know. I think that when you have sex, you deal with the consequences. Since I'm opposed to abortion, I generally think the woman should have the child, and the man should help take care of it, unless it's placed up for adoption (and they both agree on it). But since abortion is legal, I'm not sure what's wrong with saying, hey, maybe we need a little more equity here, without being called a retard, moron, etc.

Personally, my actual feeling is that it would probably be a bad idea to allow men to opt out, as it would encourage additional promiscuity and irresponsibility (although I'm not sure how much more could exist at this point), especially among poorer people who could least afford it. However, I'm rather shocked at the animosity that people receive just for thinking that things could be a little more fair, as if nothing is ever unfair to men.

And you asked me how it is true that men don't have 100% control of reproduction. Well, to answer the question once again, men can't have children unless they find a willing participant, and cannot terminate a pregnancy once it has occurred, even if they don't want it. Women can do both of these things, which suggests to me that women have more control over reproduction than men do. Again, I'm not complaining about that biological fact, I'm just stating that it is incorrect to suggest that men and women have the same level of control over reproduction. We don't. If you want to argue that the situation is fine as it is, fine, but let's not pretend the situation is something different than it is.

7:46 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous 1charlie2 said...

Well, as the father of two boys, what this sort of crap means is that I will raise them to consider women a protected class of liar. "It's like this boys, men and women both lie. But women are protected when they do. So don't trust them -- ever -- because even when shown to be a liar, no one will hold them accountable." I'm sure that will do wonders in helping them to find good mates.

As for ANYONE who defends this sort of women with "The guy should have kept it in his pants," do you understand the principle of telling the truth ? What if an auto manufacturer sold a car with defective seat-belts ? Would you tell your sister her now-deceased husband "should have been a better driver -- if he'd AVOIDED the accident he wouldn't have NEEDED the seatbelt" ?

Of course premarital sex carries attendant risks. DRIVING carries attendant risks. LOTS of things we do have risks. Rational people moderate or attenuate their behavior based on their understanding of the risks and their willingness to assume them. NOBODY has the right to unfairly increase those risks by lying about them. And I am sickened by anyone trying to diminish the responsibility any woman to tell the %$#^$&& truth by pointing out the real or perceived mistakes made by a man.

It's frighteningly reminiscent of the attitude that "women who dress provocatively and go to a drunken frat party invite rape." Just as no one "deserves" to be raped -- no matter how stupid their behavior -- so no man "deserves" to become a father because someone lied to him about the risks.

I don't ask for much -- just a little consistency in the application of logic and laws. But perhaps that's become too much for large portions of our population.

9:10 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ms:

Your contract sounds good in theory. Certainly, it would eliminate any such fraud defense on the man's part. But that whole, "It ain't signed so pay up" part wont work because it still doesn't ensure that they will in fact pay up. And then we're pretty much back where we are now.

9:38 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jim:

No need for a legal remedy for an inequality? No, I'm all for a legal remedy for this bioligical inequality. I've already called for legislation so that EITHER my husband or myself can gestate our future children.

Stand with me, brother!

9:41 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rizzo:

We're still back where we started. For a woman to reproduce, she needs a willing participant too. Granted, his participation is not as...time-consuming? Rigorous? Painful? I don't know what to say. It's all pleasure. So, certainly, that makes it easier for a woman to find a willing participant. But it IS still an option for men. The fact that it is so easy for men and so NOT easy for women is something I can tell you women don't relish. But we're stuck with it and so are you, I'm afraid.

As for after conception, I already addressed that. You say you want more equity. Well, how is that going to work? As I said, there can only be one winner and one loser. I suppose, based on your acknowledged biases, you would want a presumption in favor of life? If either party says they want the child, the mother will be forced to carry the child to term? Do you not see the practical difficulties with that? A wicked mother may sabotage the pregnancy or, if she's really depressed, kill herself and thus the child. Obviously, you're talking about putting an even heavier burden on females to take care for their contraception, because the father can force them to go to term. And obviously, she can keep it in her pants. And women already DO take the burden the vast majority of the time. Not because we can be forced to take an unwanted pregnancy to term, but simply because the unfair, natural fact it that WE are the ones who are primarily inconvenienced by an unplanned pregnancy. And any such risk carries with it the knowledge that you don't ever know for sure whether the father will actually step up to the plate. That's even if the pregnancy was planned.

I'm sorry but your plan is just not going to work.

But I am sorry that I called you an idiot and a retard.

10:01 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a woman gets herself pregnant the law allows her to treat the foetus as a piece of dunk - something so worthless that it can be thrown into the trash can.

Legally, it is HER decision ALONE to turn this piece of dunk into a baby.

Legally, the prospective father can do NOTHING about this. He might actually WANT the baby. Many men do.

But his feelings about the matter in law count for NOTHING.

Hers count for EVERYTHING.

And if the state is so concerned about child support then it can pump up the money. Why should a man who has already been duped have to be punished again?

Does anyone here seriously believe that if the birth of children was 100% in the control of men, then duped women would be forced to pay up for years on end?

10:07 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous girl with contraceptive experience said...

Here's a newsflash: Even women don't have 100% control over reproduction. As much as we would all like someone to have that much control, it just isn't possible. Some birth control methods are very close to 100%, but, for example, some antibiotics can diminish the effectiveness of birth control. If a woman takes a pill every day but takes it at different times of the day (morning on Monday, noon on Tuesday, evening on Wednesday), that can mess with effectiveness. Even with all the best intentions in the world, a woman can make an honest mistake and forget.

The guy on Dr. Phil, to go on this public crusade to gain support in his effort to ignore his child--this makes him a bad person. He isn't arguing a hypothetical case; he is arguing for the right to ignore his child. His own child! How can anyone defend this? If you want to say he got a bad deal and we should make sure it doesn't happen to any other men, fine. Do that.

10:18 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Acksiom said...

Hey, I don't even concede the validity of the assumption that a woman has some kind of inherent right to use my personal genetic code for reproduction in the first place.

Why, exactly, should her mere possession of my sperm mean that she is automatically entitled to use it to create a new human life?

10:25 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here's a newsflash: Even women don't have 100% control over reproduction."

Yes they do. Women can have an abortion.

LEGALLY, they have 100% control.

11:13 PM, October 30, 2006  
Blogger John Salmon said...

A father's responsibilities to his child or children are not a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife.

11:59 PM, October 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Salmon said "A father's responsibilities to his child or children are not a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife."

What if the father cannot get to see his children?

What if the children have another 'father'?

What if the father does not have the means?

And what, exactly, do you mean by 'his' children?

In what sense are they 'his'?

And if a woman stole your sperm and impregnated herself would you still see yourself as responsible for the resulting child simply because it had some of your genes inside it?

And, of course, what do you mean by 'responsibilities'?

And how would you carry out all these 'responsibilities' if, for example, you lived 500 miles away from 'your' child?

Finally, if you want 'fathers' to take their responsibilities seriously then perhaps you should argue for laws that discourage women from having children without the support of the 'father'. At the moment, the opposite is true.

12:13 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

Get a vasectomy This is almost impossible for a single male. He would need a female's permission and a psychological review and and and ... A single female CAN indeed get a tubal ligation. The two are in no way the same.

You made the child you must support it Sadly this also applies to rape and theft of sperm and ... What you are really saying is that no male is human enough to be worthy of a choice in whether or not to be a father. You, in other words, believe males are property, things, mere machinery.

Frankly the views shown here are scarey, terrible, just terrible. Reverse the sexes and this could be a discussion from the 1700's; worse a discussion by some of the worst people living in the 1700's.

3:35 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous armchair anarchist said...

i dont like the idea of abortion, BUT, theres that choice thats needed, if people we given access to all the forms of birth control, the pre conception birth control, then there would be less abortions.

but religious people, think even contracception is somehow bad, so there is no other resort.

NOW, if a woman lies or steals sperm, or whatever, they should be responsible for that action, the man never accepted that role, if it was planned then they are responsible. but to break the law, just to have the "precious child", and to take money from a man, which is what a lot of women in that situation do.

theres stories about, stealing sperm from used condoms, oral sex and use that to impregnate a woman.

basically your saying that women can do everything they can decide they can do everything but always the man will pay, in essence its male slavery.

women and men should control their own reproductive parts, unfortunatly the choice men have in control of their own reproduction, is tiny, women have more choices. its easy to say men should keep it in their pants, or wait till marriage. why not say that to women, if i recall it, it takes 2 to have sex.. a man and a woman.

IF the woman, makes the decision to have a kid, and the man doesnt want one, and she is so obsessed about having one that she in essence rapes the man, reduces him to just a turkey baster, then why should he pay for something he had no choice in.

if a man rapes a woman, and the LAW says you cant have an abortion, that reduces the woman into just a incubator.

both sexes need to use b/c, but i know of a few unscrupulous women, having a kid is an easy option for them, forget about the man, and how they feel.

4:51 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

When you buy a car, you research the make and model, and then carefully review the loan documents before buying. When you buy a house, you send inspectors, title searchers and employ other professionals to make sure everything is in working order and that the house will be a good value for you.

But when it comes to procreation, which is the most important decision of all, many of us willingly choose a partner based on very little common sense. It might be someone you meet in a bar, or on the street. It might be a person who is willing at the time to have sex with you.

Yet, after unprotected sex occurs and the damage is done, people get all righty-wrongy and litigious. The drunk woman with whom you met briefly at a bar is now is satan because she told a lie. Don't get all pious because you don't like the outcome of your less-than-stellar decisions.

In this arena of pregnancy, I know it is tough to swallow, men don't have control of what happens after an egg is fertilized. Most of the male whining on the board has more to do about control than anything else. They don't like the concept of being controlled by another person. Control your pants, control your condom purchases and you won't have to worry about control from women you barely know. If you want kids so badly, find a lady, court her, date her for a few years until you are sure you can trust her, then have all the kids you want. Or, do like Madonna, and adopt. (Although I don't wish to get Helen all atither about Madonna here so hopefully she won't read this far)

6:51 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

I must say, this discussion has gotten pretty heated. It is a very controversial subject and with good reason. Some unfortunate men in our society, like the one on Dr. Phil, are now being treated like women were pre Roe vs. Wade and perhaps further back than that. I don't doubt that women were treated in a similar manner to some of the men in this discussion which is shameful and sexist. It was wrong then to force women to be mothers against their will under the law. It is wrong to do the same today to men.

Apparently, even raising a discussion of men's reproductive rights is more than a majority of people can hear. I guess this is how women felt years ago. It's pathetic.

7:31 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Atticus said...

What is pathetic is that you encourage the whining. Go back through the comments and weigh the misandric against the misogynistic. The misogynistic far outweigh the misandric. I see no one posting anything about how good it is to take advantage of men, no one recommending that women scrape out the condoms, no one advising women to lie to men in order to get pregnant. I see plenty of posts accusing women--not just a woman, but all women--of doing those things.

I see commenters who encourage men to get a grip on their own sexual activity, to choose partners carefully, to consider choices about sex thoroughly. All good advice.

9:10 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous TMink said...

A girl etc wrote: "Even women don't have 100% control over reproduction. As much as we would all like someone to have that much control, it just isn't possible. Some birth control methods are very close to 100%, but, for example, some antibiotics can diminish the effectiveness of birth control."

Actually, this is not accurate. Abstinence is 100% effective. Well OK, one exception, but statistically insignificant.

I think the problem comes from treating sex like Koolade when it is really pure grain alcohol. "Want some Koolade, have some! Not for the kiddies, because they are too young, but middle schoolers and high schoolers, have some Koolade! Here is a special cup so you don't have an accident."

Instead of "Now watch this stuff you two, it is powerful and can have unintended consequences. If you're not careful drinking this stuff, it could ruin your life. But if you ARE careful, it can make life more fun. Just be careful who you drink it with, be VERY careful."

The sexual revolution was a miserable failure that has left men and women injured and angry with each other. Read the posts, and cry if you want. It is because we have all become Koolade drinkers. Treat sex with respect, it packs a punch, it is even flamable, and it can wreck your life if you use it carelessly.

Trey

10:02 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jw:

um, what are you talking about? a single man does NOT need a female's permission to get a vasectomy.

helen:

you seem to say neither a man nor a woman should be forced to become a parent if they don't want to. that would be great and would be the case in an ideal world. and we would see this happen very little if men would take up an equal burden in matters of contraception. again, the simple fact is that most men leave this to women. and as i'm sure you know, hormonal contraception which is the most effective is expensive.

however, once BOTH parties have been irresponsible and a child is conceived (and there is a disagreement), ONE OR THE OTHER is going to get to make the decision over the objection of the other. it's unfortunate state of affairs but there is no other way around it. either a woman is going to get to force a man into becoming a parent or choose and abortion over his objection or a man is going to get to force a woman into becoming a parent or force her to have an abortion.

10:09 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous girl with contraceptive experience said...

Trey,

Yes--I agree with the abstinence being 100% effective. Should have said that. Also agree with the KoolAid analogy.

10:11 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

I think what Dr. Phil realizes is that women are the weaker sex. Dr. Phil realizes that females need and heavily depend, one way or the other, on men to survive. As anyone who has helped a woman arrange her living room furniture knows, women have a very hard time making up their minds.

Thus they need more choices. A choice whether to go out with a guy or not, a choice to kiss him or not, a choice to engage in heavy petting or not, a choice to have sex with him or not, a choice to insist he use protection or not, a choice to lie about her own use of birth control or not, a choice to have an abortion or not, a choice, if the baby is born, to drop it off at a "safe house" or not, a choice to put it up for adoption or not.

Of course if any of those choices go wrong, it is the duty and responsibility of the stronger sex, men, to come to the rescue, men who are used to fighting wars, men who deal with unfair adversity and long odds, men who stay on the sinking ship to save women and children.

Obviously, men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. A recent study claims that men are smarter than women.

So come on guys, get on the boat with Dr. Phil and help out the weaker sex. And, if the boats begins to sink, remember it's women and children first.

;-)

10:22 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having just read through this thread almost in its entirety I am appalled at how utterly selfish many of the women here seem to be.

For example; "When you buy a car, you research the make and model, and then carefully review the loan documents before buying. When you buy a house, you send inspectors, title searchers and employ other professionals ... ..."

Then perhaps we should say the same about women who are date-raped or who end up with violent husbands; i.e. "Tough! You should have checked out the goods beforehand."

He raped you? Tough. You should have checked him out properly beforehand.

He beat you? Tough. You should have checked him out properly beforehand.

The notion that a man should keep his zipper closed or else he is responsible for a child is akin to the notion that a woman should stay at home or she is responsible for anything that happens to her outside it.

10:30 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Hey Girl with experience, thanks for seeing that my abstinence remark was not a cheap shot. In the discussion, we just leave it out more than we should, so I wanted to give it a mention.

And thanks for being a better speller than I. KoolAID, not Koolade!

Keep posting.

Trey

10:30 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger vper1 said...

If Men Went on Strike? (PDF)

More misandry in the comments I would say :)

10:35 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Dadvocate,

I think you are playing devil's advocate regarding Dr. Phil but you are right--the weak woman is exactly the view this "protector" and enabler of weak irresponsible female behavior has of women. He truly believes that women cannot be held accountable for their behavior or decisions--and that men must always rescue them and be held accountable for their own behavior plus for women's choices as well; it seems this is a popular view as many in this thread feel exactly the same way.

10:56 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Captain Holly said...

The sexual revolution was a miserable failure that has left men and women injured and angry with each other. Read the posts, and cry if you want. It is because we have all become Koolade drinkers. Treat sex with respect, it packs a punch, it is even flamable, and it can wreck your life if you use it carelessly.

Excellent point. You hit the nail on the head.

I fully agree with Dr. Helen and other commenters that the current system of family law is heavily biased towards women, and that men more often than not are treated as nothing more than "paychecks with pants" by a many women and the court system.

I also agree that in a perfect world, both sexes would be treated equally and with respect by the other. However, in reality there will always be some inequalities because men and women are different (as shocking as that may be to some people).

The point I've tried to make with my comments is that the laws of Men DO NOT -- and CAN NOT -- supercede the laws of Nature. For example, you may have the legal right to step into the crosswalk in front of a speeding semi-truck; after all, if the driver hits you, it's his fault. But it's a stupid thing to do and you'll pay a tremendous price, if you even survive.

Similarly, you may have the legal right as a man to have sex with any female of legal age that you choose, whenever and wherever you wish to. But it's a stupid idea, and you'll likely end up paying for it in heartbreak and/or money.

I'm not only advocating responsiblity for men, either. Women might have the legal right to go to a party with strange men, get drunk, start making out with a man they've just met and then at the moment of penetration yell "stop" and expect him to do it. But it's a stupid thing to do, and if they get raped or pregnant they need to accept some of the responsibility for putting themselves in such a situation in the first place.

That's the bottom line: As much as some people would like it to be otherwise, sex always has consequences. If you don't think so, you're eventually going to get burned, whether it be through unintended pregnancy or emotional trauma or mandated child support payments for the next 18 years.

That's the reason virtually every society on earth has developed "stuffy" rules concerning marriage and sex and procreation. Because people have recognized throughout the centuries that making life is just as significant as taking life, and sexual expression needs to be controlled and directed.

While we as a society have learned to control reproduction, we haven't controlled or eliminated any of the other negative consequences of sex; indeed, we have made them worse by eliminating the concept of personal responsibility. In today's world, you have to protect yourself, because no one else can -- or will.

11:21 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Anonymous 10:30:

This is a thread about unwanted pregnancy not about date rape which is why I am addressing that particular issue. Trust me, you don't even want to go near my opinion on people who willingly remain in abusive relationships. I have absolutely no sympathy for them either.

I don't understand fo a minute why people enthusiastically jump into marriages or financial dealings with the opposite sex without running a criminal and credit history on them first. A little knowledge goes a long long way.

11:31 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

My previous posts let any and all know where I stand and I agree with so many more. However, I must exhort each one of you, Dr. Helen included to read "The Case for Father Custody" by Daniel Amneus. The book is broad in subject and deals with almost every point that this post has elicited. I cannot recommend the ideas contained in this book highly enough. You can read it for free at the following url:

http://christianparty.net/tcffc.htm

P.S. If you are a secular humanist or anything involving the alpha-privative, don't let the url scare you away from the ideas contained therein.

11:47 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

P.P.S.

The links to the left of the page do not reflect my thoughts nor do they reflect the thoughts of Dr. Amneus; that is from what I have read.

11:55 AM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

" I've already called for legislation so that EITHER my husband or myself can gestate our future children."

Heh. Well, I would settle for legislation that gives men and women equal control over their reproduction. Are you down with that?

"What is pathetic is that you encourage the whining. Go back through the comments and weigh the misandric against the misogynistic. The misogynistic far outweigh the misandric. I see no one posting anything about how good it is to take advantage of men, no one recommending that women scrape out the condoms, no one advising women to lie to men in order to get pregnant."

Atticus, what is pathetic is your moral blindness. There has been plenty of defense for that kind of behavior. And you comment about "whining" is reprehensible man-hating crapo. It is a stock- standard ball-cutting tactic. Very transparent. Kind of like telling a 150 lb. woman she needs ot lose 100 lbs.

John Salmon,

"A father's responsibilities to his child or children are not a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife. "

And neither should his authority over those children, to a presence in their lives, to making decisons about education or medical treatment or place of residence, be a function of how he's been treated by his girlfriend or wife. She should have nothing whatsoever to say about his fatherhood. She wants kids? Fine. She can have them, as long as he can raise them. After, he's the father, not her.

Does that sound too patriarchal for you? Well the obverse is the legal situation in this country, and I don't hear people "hining" abot too much matriarchy.

11:55 AM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Atticus said...

"Atticus, what is pathetic is your moral blindness. There has been plenty of defense for that kind of behavior. And you comment about "whining" is reprehensible man-hating crapo. "

Show me the posts that defend those behaviors. I've been following the thread but perhaps I missed something.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings about any whining.

12:33 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hear, Hear captain holly and cham!

I don't think I have ONCE excused the behavior of any woman who purposefully gets pregnant against the wishes of the man. Or women who treat men and fathers like paychecks. (Of course, like most things, just because the guy says that's the case, don't mean it it. Anymore than a woman saying she was abused means she was.)

But what I am saying is that when you make foolish judgments, I'm not terribly interested in hearing your complaints. It's like the doctrine of unclean hands. And yes, I have often (just recently actually) made remarks (very un-PC I'm sure) to the effect that, often, women who are in abusive relationships are making repeated poor judgments that assist their continued abuse. Nothing excuses the behavior of an abuser. But I think it is VERY important for women in those relationships to look DEEPLY into their own behavior, choices and judgments that have resulted in the abuse. Because frankly, that's the best way to ensure it wont happen again.

Ditto for men and women engaging in sex, particularly casual sex, when they don't want a pregnancy.

12:35 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

acksiom said:

"Hey, I don't even concede the validity of the assumption that a woman has some kind of inherent right to use my personal genetic code for reproduction in the first place.

Why, exactly, should her mere possession of my sperm mean that she is automatically entitled to use it to create a new human life?"

Exactly. I mean, just because I ejaculate inside a woman doesn't ipso facto indicate my intent to reproduce. It simply means that I wanted to come in a warm, soft place.

12:44 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

Helen -

You are correct. I am playing the devil's advocate and being satirical. But, as with much humor, there is the grain of truth.

12:50 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Jack Dumas said...

Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, writes:

"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

2:10 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Jack Dumas,

That sounds so rational, it is no wonder she is a former president of NOW.

2:14 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Jack Dumas said...

Men clearly do not have the same right as women when it comes to reproduction, its not even close.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061020/custody_battle_061020/20061020?hub=CanadaAM

2:20 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Captain Holly cannot seem to tell the difference between a law and a circumstance.

Quote 1: "As much as some people would like it to be otherwise, sex always has consequences."

Nope: It does not. Sex does not necesarily lead to a child. It is a woman's DECISIONS that lead to a child.

Quote 2 "you may have the legal right as a man to have sex with any female of legal age that you choose, whenever and wherever you wish to. But it's a stupid idea, and you'll likely end up paying for it in ... money."

ONLY BECAUSE OF THE LAW!

In other words, Captain Holly tacitly admits that the law is unfair, but chooses not to argue for changing it.

In my view, there is NO GOOD reason for the ****LAW**** to make a man pay for the consequences of woman's ****UNILATERAL**** decision.

2:23 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Anon: 2:23 took Capn Holly to task quoting then saying: "Quote 1: "As much as some people would like it to be otherwise, sex always has consequences."

Nope: It does not. Sex does not necesarily lead to a child. It is a woman's DECISIONS that lead to a child."

First off, sexual encounters have consequences BEYOND AND APART FROM children or std's. I mean come on here. Sex has consequences like orgasms, wet spots, better sleep, and emotional closeness. And those are just some of the (mostly) good ones. Sex has a myriad of possible consequences, that is why it is so complicated.

And a woman's decision is not enough to lead to a child. Women in the world decide to have children everyday, many remain childless. Their decision does not enter into it in these cases. My wife and I decided to have a child and tried till it got a little boring. (Only for awhile.)

Then we sought donor embryos so we could have a child, or MAYBE two. We have triplets! We decided to have one or two. Now we buy things in threes. My sister had the same procedure because she had decided to have one or two. The procedure did not take, and she had none.

Reproduction is as much miracle as decision, now that I type it, it is MORE miracle than decision.

Trey

2:42 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

Yes Trey.

Yawn.

But the issue here is a **western** woman who **decides** to have a child regardless of the man's wishes.

2:52 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger vper1 said...

Trey, let me paraphrase Bill Hicks for you:

Having a baby is no miracle, raising a baby in a loving and peaceful environment is a miracle.



Does anyone honestly think the woman who was surprisingly absent from the show has created a loving environment for this child?

2:58 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Phil ruins the credibility of the profession by applying a very dangerous form of "projection" as a legitimate science. He should be stripped of his license for doing so. I encourage all responsible members of the psychological profession to file complaints against him.

Secondly, when a woman lies in order to get pregnant, she should have the last right to custody. The father is the victim. He should have sole choice to raise the child, adopt it out, or allow the woman to raise it.

This is the only responsible way to end illegitacy. I know very few men who intended to impregnate out of wedlock, and thousand of them who were reproductively raped.

David R. Usher
Senior Policy Analyst
True Equality Network
drusher@swbell.net

4:47 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Angry Harry, wake up! No yawning sleepy head! I was responding to particular statements, the ones I quoted, don't sleep through it.

Vper, disagree on the miracle of conception, agree on the miracle of a good enough family. And I can answer your question, I honestly do not think the missing mom will get it right.

But for lots of people, creating a pregnancy is indeed a miracle. Abortion is a decision in that it is a choice. Honestly, I do not support the right to terminate a pregnancy outside of rape. (Incest is rape, so it does not need to be mentioned separately.) I would be devastated if my offspring were aborted, so I made choices accordingly. Father's rights and men's rights are something I have been interested in since the mid 80s. But one way I took care of myself is I did not sleep with women that I was not willing to parent with and was CAREFUL even when I did. Fair is fair, but personal responsibility is the bomb.

My wife and I were approached with the option of selectively terminating one of our children early in her pregnancy. As terrified as we were of being able to cope with 3 children, we refused. For us, it was our faith. I recently posted pictures of our triplets fourth birthday party on my blog. Check it out, I think you will agree it was a good call on our parts.

Trey

4:49 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Great decision tmink.

Just to to lighten things up a little and to provide another video that some may not like but others will love:

http://www.glumbert.com/media/women

4:55 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Phil is 50% pro-choice. He believes in choices for women and responsibilities for men. In other words, "a woman's body, a woman's choice, a man's responsibility."

5:14 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Roger Knight said...

There is a great deal of anger out there. And there should be. We are being manipulated by a legal system that profits immensely off the no fault gender biased child support crusading system of family non-law. It is almost all completely unconstitutional, and federal grand juries could, if they so decided, raise holy hell with numerous indictments for the crimes of violating civil rights, 18 U.S.C. §241, and peonage, 18 U.S.C. §1581.
Just because you made a baby with a man, you have NO RIGHT to make him your slave. NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER.
It is a crime that is allowed only because of the incredible bias in the judicial system due to all of the money to be stolen off of breadwinning fathers, men with normal sex drives, and taxpayers who cannot see they are being ripped off and WHO is responsible for the ripping off.
Even though it is all in plain sight.
Several sources of the imbalance:
One: with the right to abortion nad the privilege of abandoning her new born infant at firestations, women get to make the SECOND decision, men cannot. It is like a football game where one team gets to replay each down if it does not like the results, but the other team must play by the old rules.
Or a better analogy, a chess game where one player gets to make two moves each turn and other only one.
Two: No fault divorce was sold as a way of allowing a couple who MUTUALLY agree to a divorce can have their separation without either party having to prove wrongdoing or other "grounds" for divorce. While that is allowed, what actually happens is that either party can UNILATERALLY impose the divorce, and need not prove the respondent to such divorce EVER DID ANYTHING WRONG to obtain an order for property division, spousal support or alimony, and child support.
That is dispensing with the due process of law and going straight to the deprivation of property.
Not what James Madison had in mind with the Constitutional requirement for due process of law.
Of course, 70 to 90% of all divorces are female initiated. And 99.99% of all paternity filings (by themselves or through the state).
Of course, for the destruction of the good will by which we begin support orders, there is the fact that the way the current system is designed, most men who make less than $60,000 per year will be hit with support orders that leave them with little live on.
Thus the high probability that they will not be able to or willing to comply with them.
And yet a woman who initiated the divorce, or the entitlement princess who had a baby so she can get all the goodies, will find out that she is responsible for her child regardless of any support moneys she receives.
That is when they get mad and demand violations of state constitutions that prohibit imprisonment for debt and the whole gamut of nonsense we call the Child Support Crusade.
Ladies, you are being manipulated into being unAmerican in the worst ways.
What is driving this?
Not honest belief in feminist ideology or in taking down the patriarchy. The judges and lawyers I have been able to speak to, under circumstances where they felt like being honest with me, tell me it is all about the money. They don't believe the feminazi crap. Family practice is the easiest way for a lawyer to make a living. Having to prove wrongdoing or preventing such proof, in either civil or criminal cases, is hard work and risky. Enforcing the judgments or coercing settlements has always been where the money is for lawyers and other agents in this business. Most judges actually have profited off the divorce and family industry themselves, or they do not wish to be a threat to those who do.
That is why we have this insane system instead of rational family and marriage policies.
It is all about the money that can be fleeced off the men and the taxpayers.

6:22 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FRAUD is a crime/tort. There is no excuse for it.

I know the religious, the repressed, and/or the bitter want to punish people for having sex. But to enable the criminal behavior (fraud) of others is cowardly, immoral, and wrong.

And cut the shit about "whining". It isn't "whining". If some criminal was trying to defraud you of a substantial amount of your net worth you would be doing the same type of "whining". You would be doing the same thing if someone was trying to enslave you.

6:51 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

Hello tmink - "Angry Harry, wake up! No yawning sleepy head! I was responding to particular statements, the ones I quoted, don't sleep through it."

Well, pardon me for speaking!

LOL!

(My apologies to you - I got carried away.)

But I get so f******g angry over this issue.

I find it absolutely unbelievable that MOST women currently believe that it is right and proper for ***THE LAW**** to PUNISH a man so HORRIBLY for a situation that is brought about SOLELY by someone else; in fact, simply because this someone else is a woman.

In what other area of THE LAW are people made to pay such a huge price, LONG TERM, for consequences which arise ENTIRELY from the actions and choices of someone else? - typically, a very selfish someone else.

Indeed, you can see younger women all over the internet discussing 'relationships' and marriage in such a way that it is very obvious that the men are nowadays **totally** dispensable in their eyes.

These women know damn well that they can simply fool some man - preferably a man who is well off - into impregnating them and/or even marrying them and then they can discard him while hanging on to much of his money, his house and the children.

And it is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS that our politicians actually encourage this sort of thing.

And when a woman hoodwinks a man into a pregnancy and against his wishes CHOOSES to bear offspring, she is cheating him horribly - and much more so if the relationship is of short duration.

And what does the law do? It takes her side and it punishes him.

7:53 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous michael said...

Who took the 'marital' out of premarital sex?

8:25 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Why do men feel they are being "punished"? Is the opportunity to raise one's own offspring "punishment"? Men can receive full custody if it is proved they are the better parent option, men can receive joint custody or get visitation on the weekends if they so choose. Yet, the men on this board seem much more concerned with having to pay child support to a woman than trying to figure out how to make the best out of a situation they had full control over preventing if they so chose.

I don't see an uproar over who gets to parent and involvement in a child's life. It's more like, "Although I was the one who made the choice to have unprotected sex, why can't I force the mother of my child to abort the baby or raise it on her own so I can wash my hands of the whole unpleasant mess. Personal responsibility applies to everyone but me."

8:38 PM, October 31, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

Cham-

I spent 7 or 8 years fighting for shared physical custody of my children. A local attorney told me that my case hold the record for the longest litigation regarding divorce/child custody in our county.

I won every court hearing but my ex continually filed new petitions. Finally she quit when she realized she might end up paying child support and my legal expenses.

I pay more than my share of the children's expenses according to law but it is worth it to me to stay out of court and spend lots of time being a parent.

However, the case under discussion is about a man who was tricked into becomimg a parent through deceit, lies and seduction when he had expressly stated he did not wish to have a child.

9:10 PM, October 31, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cham-

Why do men feel they are being "punished"? Is the opportunity to raise one's own offspring "punishment"? Men can receive full custody if it is proved they are the better parent option, men can receive joint custody or get visitation on the weekends if they so choose. Yet, the men on this board seem much more concerned with having to pay child support to a woman than trying to figure out how to make the best out of a situation they had full control over preventing if they so chose.

Because they are being punished for someone else's selfish, unilateral, and unrealistic choices. When men want to have children they generally want to have them: (a) with a woman they WANT to have children with; (b) with a woman they have chosen and generally want to spend the rest of their lives with; (c) when they feel they are financially, emotionally, situationally, etc. ready for them. When a woman uses fraud, theft, deception, etc. to involuntarily make him a father without his agreement and consent she is harming both the children and him, because she is recklessly choosing to have them outside of favorable conditions and with an unwilling father. So it is she that is harming any children by not waiting for a more favorable situation and a ready and willing father, not him.

Personally, I would try to make the best of a situation like this, but on my terms. I wouldn't allow a woman to unilaterally bleed me because of her recklessness or think that I was at her beck and call. And I'd try to make sure she didn't hurt these already disadvantaged kids even more with her nuttiness.

I don't see an uproar over who gets to parent and involvement in a child's life. It's more like, "Although I was the one who made the choice to have unprotected sex, why can't I force the mother of my child to abort the baby or raise it on her own so I can wash my hands of the whole unpleasant mess. Personal responsibility applies to everyone but me."

Because "personal responsibility" doesn't rest on the victim of a crime/tort. In the hypothetical we are talking about a man took normal, reasonable precautions to avoid getting a woman pregnant and the woman deceptively, fraudulently, and/or criminally bypassed these reasonable precautions intentionally. The "personal responsibility" is hers, because she committed a crime/tort.

In the hypothetical we are talking about the women intentionally created the "unpleasant mess" you are referring to, it didn't happen accidentally.

12:05 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

Cham said "Why do men feel they are being "punished"? Is the opportunity to raise one's own offspring "punishment"? "

What a load of nonsense.

Firstly, THE LAW often prevents men from bringing up their own offspring even when they are desperate to do so.

Secondly, many men might not **WANT** to have offspring - IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT BY YOU.

Indeed, what gives YOU the right as a woman to inflict offspring upon anybody?

What kind of superior being do you think you are?

Thirdly, I trust that you are completely opposed to abortion, and that you believe that women should simply take to term whatever pregnancies come their way.

If not, then your position could not be more selfish and hypocritical, because you would be arguing that it is perfectly all right for a woman to toss into the garbage can the very thing that you - when it suits you - call offspring.

as per my piece, ...

http://www.angryharry.com/esRantAgainsttheCSA.htm

12:07 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger Sailorcurt said...

Doctor Phil has a daytime TV show.

Who watches TV in the daytime (more often than not)? Women...Mothers...Housewives.

Dr. Phil is not running a therapy clinic, he is an entertainer. His job is to entertain his target audience, to keep them watching so that the network can make money selling advertising during his show.

OF COURSE he panders to the female perspective. He wouldn't be very popular wiht advertisers if he pissed off the majority of his potential viewer base by siding with the man.

Dr. Phil may be a very capable therapist under the right circumstances but make no mistake, in the venue of the Television show he is nothing more than an entertainer, pure and simple.

As far as the Father's rights in reproduction, I've been saying that for years.

Theres a little phrase in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution...you know...the supreme law of the land. It goes something like this:

"...No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In other words, if a woman has the right to choose, so does a man.

12:28 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger jw said...

Helen said: "Apparently, even raising a discussion of men's reproductive rights is more than a majority of people can hear. I guess this is how women felt years ago. It's pathetic."

Thank you Dr. Helen. You are, sadly, right.

Anonymous:

Eleven years ago, before we were married, both my wife and I were sterilized. She did not even need to tell her, at the time, husband. I needed my, at the time, wife's permission. Look into the law.

For a single male to get a vasectomy he will need a woman's permission: Plus a great many other things which CANNOT BY LAW apply to a female. Getting a vasectomy is not a simple matter as it applies to a female's property.

CHAM:

I had custody of my kids. Custody is one thing, getting child support out of a female is a big topic and one most people stand opposed to (sad to say). The law of responsibility, fraud and more importantly rape is quite another thing.

Here we are talking about a male's right to have some choice in whether or not to be a father: The law as it exists is that no male is allowed a choice.

4:18 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger Mercurior said...

yes harry, i dont want kids, was never really interested in them, if i was to have them i would be a bad father, so thats coloured my choice to be childfree, then the stories about unprincipled women effectively stealing 18 years of money from a man, due to her frauds. thats another reason, then theres medical etc..

marriage isnt about kids, marriage is about love of each other, kids are a side effect in most cases..

do i love less because i dont have a kid, should marriage only exist is you plan to have kids, what about those who cant have them.. are their marriages less.

if someone breaks the law, they should be punished, and from what i see men arent all criminals even though its getting to be like that.

if i had a child by accident, i would be responsible, whether thats giving support to my wife to have it or to abort it. if someone takes my sperm, and uses it without my knowledge or implicit permission, then that is theft, and fraud, they will take 18 years money from me, due to a criminal act the theft of a mans sperm.

in that case the woman who wants it should pay for it, if a man doesnt use protection then that makes him implicit in the act and should pay for it. if a woman doesnt use protection, she should pay.. the same rule, same effects..

but some of the women and a few men here think that men should be made to pay for a criminal act perptrated by a woman. is that fair.. just imagine if it was the other way around, women should pay for a criminal act perpetrated by a man.. there would uproar.

a woman has choice more than men(17), a man has choice as well(3).. why havent they dont more about male contraceptives.. (ours havent really changed in millenia, they used sheaths of lambskin in greek and roman times, abstinence forever, but womans contraceptives the technology gives them MORE choices, why put all the blame onto the man, if the woman doesnt use protection, men should use protection, i am not saying they shouldnt, but why is it always the mans fault.

5:33 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Sailorcurt,

Yes, Dr. Phil is an entertainer for a bunch of sexist housewives. So what? It doesn't make the show okay or harmless. It is destructive in that the ideas infiltrate these women's lives and give them more of a sense of entitlement than they had before. Dr. Phil is a sellout to his own sex and an enabler of the opposite one, all for a huge salary. This is what is rewarded in our society. That is what I find truly sad.

6:36 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger gwallan said...

Thanks Dr Helen for initiating this most interesting discussion.

The underlying inequity in the current standard is highlighted by something mentioned only once among all these comments.

A woman can rape a thirteen year old boy and subsequently force her victim to pay child support. A system that not only enables this but will also enforce it is a sick system indeed.

7:43 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jw:

Please cite me to the lawthat requires a single man to have a female's permission to get a vasectomy. Or if it is just asking too much for you to back up your completely incredible assertion, then at least cite me to the STATE where this is the law and I will look it up myself and report back to this post.

Thank you.

7:44 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mercurior said:

"in that case the woman who wants it should pay for it, if a man doesnt use protection then that makes him implicit in the act and should pay for it. if a woman doesnt use protection, she should pay.. the same rule, same effects.."

is that not the case here? did the man on dr. phil's show use protection?

if the man adamantly does NOT want children with THIS woman but insists on having sex with her-- fine. but he's got no business taking such an important risk with a woman he doesn't like or trust enough to have children with. you just wanna get a nut off? great. wear a condom. it's a last chance theory. she may be a conniving bitch. he probably aleady knew that, which is why he didn't want to have children with her. so all the more reason why, if he insisted on having sex with her, he should take responsibility for his ability to prevent and unwanted pregnancy.

NOBODY here is making excuses for this woman's actions, but nobody here should be making excuses for his either.

7:51 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Friend of USA said...

0If a woman tells me her pitbull is as docile as a little puppy, that it never attacked or bit anyone, and she tells me it is ok to pet him, and she encourages me to pet her pitbull, but then when I do the pitbull bites my hand off, would Dr Phil tell me I should have worn a protective glove before petting the dog?

That because I was not carefull, because I did not wear protection I am to blame for what happened?

And if it turned out the pitbull had bitten other people before and the woman knew about it all along, would Dr Phil still say I am to blame?

If a woman gives me a ride in her car but does not tell me the brakes on her car are totally worned out, and we get into an accident , would Dr Phil tell me I am to blame, that I should have checked the brakes myself before climbing in that car?

9:32 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder. Did the guy ask her before he ejaculated in her? I mean, just because she wanted to have intercourse doesn't mean she consented to his ejaculating in her? And just because she says she's infertile and on the pill clearly doesn't constitute a consent for him to ejaculate inside her. Hmmm, I wonder. Maybe while he's getting her for fraud, she can charge him with assault.

9:40 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very inflammatory issue, and it's also an easy one to drive off course by talking about responsability, choice, right to life, and a myriad of other related debates. In my opinion it needs to be framed as an equal protection issue, and people shouldn't allow the debate to be hijacked for any other cause.

The law right now gives women the right to choose to end their parental responabilities at any point from conception beyond birth. In many states a new mother can drop a newborn off and walk away no strings attached... if the stress is too much for her to bear. To say this is patronizing and demeaning to women is obvoius... but in our current culture it's a lot like pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, a dangerous endeavor.

Men on the other hand have zero post conception control over the process, women have choices, men have responsibilities. The argument that man have the choice not to engage in intercourse is a Red Herring... women also have that choice and we're talking about POST conception. The argument that women have the unique position of being forced to carry the baby so should be granted control is simply a selective view of the facts. If a man worked continually for 24 hours a day, it would take him MORE than 9 months to earn enough to cover the average child support obligation. So much for "my body my choice". Women can't be inconvenienced for 9 months but men can become slave labor for more than that at the whim of another.

Men deserve the same choices post-conception that women have... and that is the choice to end their rights and responsabilities up to some legally defined period. If women don't like it then they should be pushing for an end to abortion, in which case both men and women would be back on an even footing, where EVERYONE is held equally responsible for their stupidity if they get pregnant when they didn't want to.

9:56 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Hey Angry Harry, it is OK friend! I should have realized that you were just, well, ANGRY! But, I appreciate the recent posts where you outlined more of your thoughts. Peace to you my friend, thanks for the kind answer.

Trey

9:58 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

anonymous 9:40 said "I wonder. Did the guy ask her before he ejaculated in her? I mean, just because she wanted to have intercourse doesn't mean she consented to his ejaculating in her?"

I think that this reveals the extent to which many women will go in order to portray themselves as victims of assault.

He ejaculated without my permission!

But don't laugh folks, because there are millions of women just like Ms Anonymous 9:40. They **REALLY DO** believe that unless a man conforms to their every wish then they have been 'abused'. You see them all the time on these stupid afternoon chat shows that carpet-bomb men here in the UK.

These shows have flooded the western media for more than 20 years and they have **seriously** poisoned the whole landscape of gender relationships - and will do so for many years to come.

10:10 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:40am-

I wonder. Did the guy ask her before he ejaculated in her? I mean, just because she wanted to have intercourse doesn't mean she consented to his ejaculating in her? And just because she says she's infertile and on the pill clearly doesn't constitute a consent for him to ejaculate inside her. Hmmm, I wonder. Maybe while he's getting her for fraud, she can charge him with assault.

Well they seemed to be in a long term relationship - did she raise the issue the dozens or hundreds of other times they had sex?

10:29 AM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger Mamonaku187 said...

Dr. Helen,

Thank you for posting this topic. I have read your blog over the past year with great interest.

Angry Harry is one of the founding fathers of the Men's Rights Movement, whose time has come.

Women are abusing the power which has been given to them, by MEN.

Now, we Men must band together to set things to rights before we have no society left.

Dr. Phil is but a symptom of a greater cultural sickness: Feminism.

Please visit my blog, and unplug from the Fe-Matrix!!

www.mamonaku187.blogspot.com

10:37 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The FACT remains, that a woman can have a child and walk away from it, no questions asked.

Can a man?

If the right to willfully abandon a child is given to women, why is that same right not given to men?

11:44 AM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some states designate places (hospitals, fire stations, for example) where newborn can be left, no questions asked. This is put in place not so a woman can avoid her responsibility, but to protect the infant. It doesn't happen as often as abortion, but it does happen that newborn babies are abandoned to die. This "safe harbor" provision protects the baby. I don't know how often babies are dropped off.

Why you would consider this a form of birth control, or just another sensible choice women get to make, is beyond me. Why some of you consider abortion just another method of b/c is also beyond me.

1:04 PM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 10:29:

So, she has to tell him each and every time whether it's ok for him to ejaculate inside of her, but does he have to tell her each and every time they have sex that he doesn't want to have kids right now with her? If not, why not and why the difference?

1:26 PM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and i ask you the same question, angryharry.

1:29 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

Anon. 1:04 said -
Some states designate places (hospitals, fire stations, for example) where newborn can be left, no questions asked. This is put in place not so a woman can avoid her responsibility...

sarcasm - Yeah, right. - /sarcasm

(My emphasis)

1:39 PM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

girlwithcontraceptive experience said "He isn't arguing a hypothetical case; he is arguing for the right to ignore his child. His own child! How can anyone defend this?"

Good question!
However, women have the legal right to abandon newborn babies (from birth up to 30 days old) in nearly all 50 states!!!

If women, why not men?
Providing that right to one group and not the other does not sound anything near equitable to me.

2:49 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

girlwithcontraceptive experience said "He isn't arguing a hypothetical case; he is arguing for the right to ignore his child. His own child! How can anyone defend this?"

This is just fooling around with deceptive words.

In what sense is it 'his' child?

Legally, it does not seem to be 'his' child.

He can be removed from 'his' child at the whim of the woman. The law allows her to leave the country with the child. The law allows the woman to displace him and to replace him with another man. The woman can even flush 'his' child down the toilet in the early stages of pregnancy.

So, in what sense, exactly, does this child actually 'belong to him'?

Well, the truth is that it is not 'his' child at all!

Yes. He is related genetically to the child; but he is also related genetically to many other people, but, surely, this does not mean that he must be held 'responsible' for them simply because of this.

Legally, the child is 'his' - but only in the sense that the law burdens him with financial responsibility for it.

But this is merely a legal ploy, not a moral one.

3:04 PM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous girl with contraceptive experience said...

On a comment board where so many men are peevish because women don't abort their babies or abandon them at the fire station, where men want the freedom to abandon their babies...you want to talk about MORALS?

If the tone of the comments was more about how women have too much freedom to abandon their children and how women should be held as responsible as men are...you guys might actually have me in your court. But that's not the tone at all.

3:31 PM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As for now, the law is an imperfect solution to an imperfect situation. By definition, one or the other party must have their say and the other party's feeling about it will be ignored. So, the only question is, which party is that going to be?"

How about a law that states, "if you do not have 2 willing parents in the waiting, then this child will be put up for adoption. Period."

That would be fair.
Then - if the woman wanted the child, she could adopt it back from the state.

3:34 PM, November 01, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A man visits a woman in her domicile. He puts on a condom and proceeds to have sex with said woman.

Afterwards, the man disposes the used condom in the bathroom trash.

The man leaves.

The woman retrieves condom and proceeds to impregnate herself.

According to the facts of the case, is the man liable for child support?

In the state of Illinois the answer is YES. The court ruled that his sperm was "freely given" property to the woman and she has a right to do what ever she wants with it.

The process of impregnation is ill relevant. His consent is not required.

The DNA proves he is the father. He is on the hook for child support. I believe the Man was a doctor. The case happened about a year ago in Chicago.

Lesson #1, Don't Date psycho women. (Especially overseas)
Lesson #2, don’t have sex with anyone you're not willing to have a kid with.
Lesson #3, Guys, the law is rigged against you, get over it and learn to weigh the risks.
Lesson #4, Sex is better when you're sober. (Really)
Lesson #5, If you’ve got time to watch to Dr. Phil, you’re unemployed and should be out looking for a Job instead of sitting on the couch watching daytime TV :-P

-A Career Enlisted Marine who's seen way too much. (And not just combat.)

4:02 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

girl with contraceptive experience said...

"On a comment board where so many men are peevish because women don't abort their babies or abandon them at the fire station, where men want the freedom to abandon their babies...you want to talk about MORALS?"

Yawn. You are purposely ducking the issue.

We are not really talking about 'babies' when it comes to the possibility of abortion.

We are talking about THE LAW as it relates to a piece of tissue that THE LAW says can be tossed away by the woman into a garbage can.

At this point in time there is - IN LAW - no baby.

This worthless piece of tissue can ONLY be turned into a baby by the woman.

The man - IN LAW - has no say in the matter.

The woman has 100% control - THROUGHOUT.

And yet, if the woman UNILATERALLY decides to turn this worthless piece of tissue into a baby, THE LAW - and YOU! - will say that the man should be responsible for it.

This is nothing less than outrageous.

With regard to the resulting offspring being 'his' child. This is hokum. It is just misusing a possessive pronoun by using it in a sense that was far more appropriate in an age long gone.

Indeed, if it is 'his' child, then a woman who aborts should be tried for murdering 'his' child.

But, of course, most women want it both ways. It's 'his' child when they want his money. It's 'her' child when she wants to deny him custody. And it's a worthless piece of tissue when she wants to abort.

4:31 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger dadvocate said...

Lesson #3, Guys, the law is rigged against you, get over it and learn to weigh the risks.

Gee, why didn't women just accept that the law was rigged against them and get over it pre Roe v Wade, and pre all the equal opportunity stuff? We're supposed to be living in an egalitarian society with equal protection under the law. Ha! Maybe you should get over that there are those of us who will never accept being second class citizens.

5:08 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To anonymous 4:02 PM

Item 1, 2 and 4 don't apply to women, right?

Item 3 is simply to bigoted to deserve comment

As for item 5, haven't you ever heard of using a VCR or TIVO to time shift a show?

But, of course, men only behave well when we do what women want us to do and women only behave badly when men make you, right? I'm so sorry that you find it annoying to have to share your species with a bunch of male mammals.

7:15 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger Graham Strouse said...

angryharry--

"Most women?"

I don't know about that. I mean, I really don't know. I know a lot of women who, if given a chance to speak without fear in what has become a No Man's (and Woman's) Land, would, to borrow a phrase, or even a tune, "Stand by Their Man." Or any man.

But I gotta say, female socialization is pretty screwy. I marvel at the powers supposedly possessed by the patriarchy. Way I see it, ain't many men alive who could come close to terrorizing women the way other women do.

The script flips, incidentally. Men are awfully good at isolating and abusing others.

I think what the thugs and bullies, XX & XY alike, the theocrats & the theorists & the pols & the power-eaters, I think what they really fear is that someone might cut through this Gordion Knot, that someone might find a point where men and women can start talking again.

And getting angry.

In the right direction. Or the left. More or Us then there are of Them, way I see it. I think a lot of women just want to know that they can be women, protected when need be, and not, when they are able. I think a lot of men just want to be men without the bloody fuss.

I think that the Internet is causing more strife and stealing more lives then it saves. People don't talk to each other any longer. They talk to icons and avatars attached to frail human forms, forms housing the souls of fools who have learned neither the lesson of the willow nor that of the obelisk.

But that's just me. Starting a fight is easy. I'm partial to stopping them. Or finishing them. I'm rather good. Wish I could think of someone who could provide a reference.

8:36 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

Hello Graham

You said; "Most women?" .. "I don't know about that. I mean, I really don't know. I know a lot of women who, if given a chance to speak without fear in what has become a No Man's (and Woman's) Land, would, to borrow a phrase, or even a tune, "Stand by Their Man." Or any man."

Well. I don't see that going on ANYWHERE in the western world. There are, indeed, isolated groups of women and individuals who do stand by men, but, as someone who has been looking around for MANY years, I can tell you that MOST women and, probably, MOST men, have been well and truly indoctrinated with the views expressed by feminists and their associated allies.

11:54 PM, November 01, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Angry Harry,

I agree with you whole-heartedly. The phenomenon that you are describing relates to a point I have consistently maintained: I call it latent feminism. I wrote an article/blog post about this very subject. I will post just a part of it since I believe our point is beyond important.

<...In psychrometrics one can study the amount of sensible heat and latent heat in a room. When you first walk into a room, if it is hot, you seek to eliminate the sensible heat, because it is that heat which is most apparent to the senses. With conditioning, there is a palpable difference that you can feel by the reduction of humidity but the conditioning has to work it’s hardest to eliminate the latent heat that lies embedded in the carpets, the rugs, the upholstery and the like. By way of analogy, whenever a social ‘philosophy’ is dispersed it effects people, places, things and ideas on a sensible level. We may see it effect fashion, architecture, agriculture and methodologies. As Aristotle noted, “…sight is the sense that especially produces cognition in us and reveals many distinguishing features of things.” So, we see the palpable changes in our society starting at the interpersonal level and then beyond unto what our society esteems or shall we say; may currently esteem. However, as we know, it is the effects and their affects that give rise to mental circumspection. Over the ages after these effects have taken hold, the changes and dispositions become deep-seated and if their removal is sought, the endeavor may be difficult, even to the point of necessitating a reform of sorts. It should be noted that one man’s reform is another’s revolution—even an insurrection.

I hope I am in safe company to say that a dispersion of a social ‘philosophy’ or a revolution of sorts has occurred. Indeed, it occurred some time ago. Its effects and affects are intensely palpable, unless one is drunk with that inane volitional dissent which is the hallmark and plague of man’s modern confusion. Such is the case with feminism. It is not in the main the principle subject for objection. It is a sub alternated disorder of this pernicious social ‘philosophy’. It is an effect that has wrought innumerable notional affects among men and women. It is deep-seated and societally enshrined as a virtue of sorts. There is a distinction between a type of ‘authentic’ feminism and the radical feminism that destroys helter-skelter, however there has been an intermingling of the two strands and when one seeks to parse them out, he usually is greeted by the appellation ‘misogynist’.

In seeking to eliminate the sensible effects of that disordered feminism, it is not enough to start wearing a skirt or baking a better apple pie but to discern our motives and to engage in an intensely spiritual, historical, philosophical and theological circumspection. We must seek the causes and see, beyond the immediate remedies, if we have been infected by this virus in our social structures, political structures, notional structures, educational structures, religious structures and familial structures. If we acknowledge that this is a disordered social structure, than we can’t be malleable to modernity.

All too often we seek the practical, enshrine the practical and say of the speculative that it is impractical, quixotic, naïve and puerile. We hear them say, “We are here now; we have to deal with these (aforementioned) structures in the current milieu, perhaps one day we will gain a better understanding of the sexes (or any such similar topic) and leave this state of perpetual becoming.” I disagree. To subject the current structure to thought, contemplation and circumspection does take time and as such the action does occupy a space in time but we already have the tools to deduce that the current template is unquestionably broken. To go on within this template is to use its tools and to be formed by its ideas, its structures and its values. This is where we are. We have been infected and to become ‘disinfected,’ save for a singular grace of God, takes a lifetime of toil in the fields of wisdom and love.

We are participating in these structures, inculcating their paradigm and becoming reconciled and ameliorated to the civitas hominis; wherein disorder is the only order of rule. As I have said, feminism is a sub alternated effect of the overarching malicious defect that has plagued our world. It is so deeply embedded and intertwined with feminine life, as half-truths mix the good with the ill, that there is inevitably a latency borne about and carried deep within like the crevasses and subductions of upholstery hold stubborn ‘dust bunnies’ beyond the reach of the vacuum cleaner...>

This latent feminism affects our mothers, sisters and daughters. It is pernicious and seeks to kill the last vestiges of authentic femininity for it is quite apparent even though the modern woman would strenuously deny it, the gender war is over and a definite winner has emerged: men. Why do I say this? Rather then living according to their nature and embracing their vocation (which is not a job) they have adopted the ways of men, they dress like men, they seek sexual license like the most despicable men thinking they would be liberated. They confuse job with vocation and think that by assuming social position that they should be accorded respect in virtue of that position; a 'respect' that men will never confer. They confuse freedom for license and act as tyrants over reproductivity; blithely bestowing life on a soul that they deem viable for whatever the reason. Finally, they have lost the fundamental distinction between what you do and who you are. The existential/metaphysical aspect (who you are) is cast aside in favor an inane activism where the person's worth is centered on careerism and a Machiavellian ethic that canonizes that which only garners power and false authority. Yes, the winner has been announced—men, for the women are few and far in-between and as always, it will be left to the men to fix and save civilization once again because the women have abandoned natural law—nay, they have usurped it.

12:55 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger vper1 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:33 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger angryharry said...

Hi Titurator

I think that you have an EXCELLENT insight. Brilliant! Bravo!

(But I did find it quite hard to read. LOL!)

Why can't I access your blog?

2:58 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

I don't have a blog. I just signed up to get a name so that I could post on those sites that would not allow anonymous posts. I go to your site from time to time since our eyes are opened to the unfortunate realities surrounding us.

"A man who hasn't suffered, what could he possibly know?"

In this 'modern' world we live in men cannot hope to live without pain but it is this pain, unspeakable heartache, that fuels our tenacity and our willingness to go down with the ship. Thank you for your words and I too draw edification from your endeavors.

3:23 AM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous CaptDMO said...

"this misandric psychologist to pander to his female audience"

Well, let's see.
Of course his brand of pandering means income. That specific time slot demographic DEMANDS to be catered to in such a manner and apparently "Dr. Phil" is ready to serve up that kind of entertainment.
Admittedly, while I just don't have time for such things, I hear enough about Dr. Phil to opine that "I have no time for such things".
Is there any kind of disclaimer before, or after, each and every show? Is there something like "Horoscopes are for ENATERTAINMENT only. They are NOT qualified as life instruction"?

3:37 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To Graham Strouse:

What you know is a lot of women who SAY that they would "stand by their man" if the social sanctions to do so aren't too strong.

One of the most amazing things about about the male choice and (especially) paternity fraud issues is the fact that women (including Ann Landers, Dr. Laura and 3 different female chairpersons of ABA committees on paternity and family matters) are demanding that women be well paid when they lie, then insisting that women should be trusted. The level of female chutzpah is simply amazing.

7:39 AM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

titurator veritatis:

I'm impressed. But, pray, what is "authentic femininity"? And what is this "natural law" that you say women have abandoned and usurped?

7:45 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Dear Anon 7:45,

The question you ask gets to the very heart of the issue and to reply adequately would require a lengthy response that I cannot offer at this time. One thing I can tell you is that authentic femininity is not subjective, arbitrary or capricious. The question of the natural law is perennial. Natural law has been under attack for a long time and the reason is simple. In the plurality one does not want to admit or acknowledge a standard by which they may be judged, their actions may be judged or to even countenance the notion that they are under some authority that is latent in nature. This is anathema in pluralist democracy since we are populated by 300 million little kings who demand their ‘inalienable’ rights but do not want to acknowledge the foundation upon which those ‘inalienable’ rights are based. If you followed that, then you know where the usurpation has occurred. The overarching point to all of this is that Western civilization is in a serious crisis and has been for some time. It is beyond the false dichotomy of the right/left etc. This issue is philosophical/theological-religious at the core because in the end, culture is founded upon the aforementioned. The enlightenment project utterly failed and I will now say—as many people know but few want to admit—democracy has failed. This nation was founded as a representational republic. That ceased after the civil war and the liberal/pluralist democracy is now in its last agony. Our leaders of the present as well as of the past, in their cult of modernity thought that they were more intelligent than Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, the Roman Jurists, Aquinas and Ptolemy of Lucca—they were not. Finally, as I stated in the previous post, feminism is a sub alternated issue in an over arching problem. This problem (in my opinion) is teleological. Our ‘group-thinking’ ‘modern’ society, infected by relativism, denies that there is a terminus for life or a purpose for our existence and when this position is held all things are held to be in flux or relative—even gender identity—hence the playpen of feminism. It is the same in science. The scientific establishment does not define a terminus, it is all open-ended and when that is the case, then methods are unscrupulous since there would be no ethical standard or rule to govern the methods or materials employed—and since the business class rules our society, all ethics are Machiavellian, pragmatic, utilitarian for the sole procurement of profit. Thus they claim that standards and ethics are an illusory ideal. In sum, our house is built upon sand and feminism is but one of the innumerable diseases that beset our body politic.

8:55 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Interesting points Titurator. I have one piece of advice: Paragraphs, use em.

Your posts are dense (in a good way) and paragraphs would help me digest one point before I work on the next.

And I concur with your observations, but I am slightly more optimistic about the possibility of righting the ship of Democracy.

Trey

9:38 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To Helen:

I reread your original posting and you say that the "correct" response for men is (Surprise, Surprise!) to sit around talking about our feelings, in other words, to behave like women.

Why? The issues aren't difficult to understand. They can probably be stated in less than 2500 words. The big problem is that most women seem to have decided to stonewall men on them.

Men have a number of possible responses to this, some of them extremely unpleasant (think reverse "SCUM Manifesto") but constantly whining about them won't fix anything. Besides that cuts into time better spent watching NFL games or NASCAR races.

10:14 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Guy Barry said...

Thats quite some read

10:29 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Guy Barry said...

really not bad
read

10:30 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Bob H,

I think you are confusing talking about feelings and "whining" with logic, communication skills, discussion and debate. I agree with you that "sitting around whining" is not the answer for men (or for some women, although some women may feel better if they can get their feelings out)but is communication really only a female domain? I don't think so. Who said anything about feelings? What about logic, justice,equal rights etc.? Men discuss politics readily in many settings--how is that whining and sitting around talking? Do you think male politicians should keep their mouths shut because they are men and should be home watching NFL or NASCAR? And if all men do is sit around watching NFL or NASCAR, no men would be out there running the world. Running the world of politics or business takes some ability to communicate, it is the way we change the social milieu. Can all politics be summarized in 2500 words? I doubt it. And if it is, people will quickly forget your points. Sometimes, repetition of ideas is the only way to change the status quo.

10:47 AM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...

T.Veritatus:

Have to agree with Trey. For all the compound sentences, your presentation lacks legibility. This is not a request for dullards, either. Paragraphs provide visual processing cues that tell the brain the info provided is a related 'chunk'. Enhances processing.

To address your skreed (italics are my thoughts):

"The question you ask ... would require a lengthy response that I cannot offer at this time."

I take this as humor.

Synopsis:

'Authentic' femininity is not something arbitrarily decided.

Natural law has been under attack for a long time and the reason is simple. Most people don't like to be judged or to recognize there are sets of rules greater than they that they may be judged by. I would argue - by way - latent rules should be ignored as they don't exhibit potential.

I feel that the U.S. population wants their rights but don't want to acknowledge the basis for those rights. If you understood me, you understood my point.

My point is that Western civilization has been in a serious crisis for some time.

The left and right political designations don't address this.

I believe the issue is philosophical/theological because I believe culture is founded on this. I believe 'The Enlightenment' and democracy have failed and I believe many people believe this too, but don't want to admit it.

The U.S. started as a representational republic and I believe the civil war replaced that with a liberal/pluralist democracy which is now ending.

Past and present leaders have thought themselves smarter than ancient thinkers, but they're not.

As I said before, feminism is just a minor problem. The big problem is one of design or purpose in nature.

Relativist modern society denies an end result for life and purpose to existence. This relativism enables the 'playpen' of feminism.

It is the same in science. I believe science uses unscrupulous methods because I find them unethical because I think ethics depend from God.

I think the business class that rules our society uses ethics that are Machiavellian, pragmatic and utilitarian for the sole procurement of profit. They claim that standards and ethics are an illusory ideal.

Summary: Our civilization has abandonded the God of my choice, so I feel it is disease ridden and feminism is but one of those diseases.


That about it?

10:56 AM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

girl with contraceptive experience said...
On a comment board where so many men are peevish because women don't abort their babies or abandon them at the fire station, where men want the freedom to abandon their babies...you want to talk about MORALS?"

No, Girl, we are talking about equality and criticizing hypocrisy. Capable of understanding that? Nice try at misrepresentation though.

Atticus,
If you are still here, in answer to your quite valid question:

Anonymous 12:57
Cham 10:05
Anonymous Andrea 9:52

12:23 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous I was wearing a skirt and a pretty blouse said...

T. veritatus,

I think I had a date with you once. I was the one who jumped from your car at a stoplight.

12:39 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 4:02PM-

For a marine you seem very reluctant to fight for your own rights and the rights of others in this situation. Your answer to widespread fraud, corruption, theft, discrimination, rights violations, etc. is to tell yourself and others to "get over it"?

(I am in no way attacking your service to this country, I'm disagreeing with your view and opinion on this issue.)

2:28 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i was wearing...-

I'm the nice guy that rejected you after a couple dates 6mos later because you were a misandrist, rights-violating dunderhead.

2:30 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous I was wearing a skirt and a pretty blouse said...

anonymous 2:30--

I guess you're just too quick for me.

3:01 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

Why should I care if somebody like Dr. Melissa thinks that I'm a pathetic loser?

To generalize the question somewhat, why should men aspire to accomplishment if all that it gets them is exploitation by more accomplished and more obnoxious females leeches? Instapundit once posted a link pertaining to this with the comment "Atlas is Shrugging"

3:56 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

Cham,

You bring up a good point, ecept that your take misses the mark.

"In this arena of pregnancy, I know it is tough to swallow, men don't have control of what happens after an egg is fertilized. Most of the male whining on the board has more to do about control than anything else."

Where you are right is that the issue is control; where you are wrong is that you seem to be saying that men should have no right to control their own reproduction. Is this what you really mean? I may be misreading you.

There is the related issue of a woman contolling her own body, but that a related issue, not the same issue. The issue we have been discussing is the right of individuals to control their own reproduction. Do you believe that all individuals have an equal right to control their own reproduction, with the same range of remedies open to them?

if for insatnce believe that a man should be forced to work and pay for 18 years for a child he didn't want, do you also believe that a woman should be forced to bear and raise, for 18 years years a child she didn't want. If for instance a woman is entitled to stop a pregnaancy, is a man equally entitled to stop the pregnancy that will produce his child?

Yo may very well point out that it's the woman's body after all. The answert to that is that reproduction doesn't work that way; nature does not respect legal doctrines or political notions such as individuality or personal dignity. Nature only cares about continuing gentic linreages, not about the transitory manifestations of lineages we call individuals. If we are going to build a society around notions we invent such as individuality - God grant we never stop trying - then we are going to have to do the work that comes with it - defining those individual rights. And if we are serious about it, we are going to have to treat people equally, without resort to the Pussy Pass or to recriminations about "whining" or "not being man enough..."

3:57 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Dr. Melissa said...

Dr. Helen,

Thank you for the link. As always, I really appreciate it. I would like to think my view is a tad more nuanced than the passages you quote. For example, here is some of what I said:

IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE! Our society is filled with such selfish, self-absorbed, indulgent adults that all they can think about is their own gratification and getting away with it with no obligation. Call me a prude. I honestly don't give a rat's ass. The consequences of sex have always been children. Sometimes, but not always, contraception works. Our society falls apart at the seams when no one wants to care for the kid.

In addition, I did respond to the commenter you quote (unfortunately, under my husband Steve's name--I didn't realize he was signed in to blogger, so it came up as his comment) and said this:

I completely agree. That scenario happened to a friend of mine, as well. Again, the solution is to outlaw abortion. If this selfish woman had to have the baby, he could have the child he desired.

She would have thought before having sex about the consequences. If she hated her husband that much she would have put her actions in line with her heart. No baby would have been made, right?

Women need to grow up, too. Abortion has resulted in infantile men and women.


My points are these: There have always been manipulative, nasty women and men around. You can't assume that the person you're screwing isn't one of these people when you're not in a committed relationship. (And sometimes even then.)

Sex always runs the risk of 1) a baby and 2) disease, even when protection is used. The man or woman who doesn't want a baby can always masturbate.

Finally, (and my post is long, too--but you can go and yell at me there, if you'd like, after you read the whole thing) the last thing America needs is one more special-interest group whining about their violated rights. This "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality, will create a world even more fractured and divided, if that were possible.

My philosophy is driven by my socially conservative outlook. I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it creates the circumstances we're in today. I know that runs counter your philosophy, Dr. Helen and I respect that. If I were pro-choice, perhaps my point-of-view on the subject would be yours.

And just to mend fences, I whole-heartedly agree with your view on arming security guards. Have a great day!

4:43 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men don't make babies; only women have the choice to make a baby. How about: "her body, her choice, her responsibility." Men face the same parental hardships as women when it comes to career, finances, education, and emotional readiness. They should have the same choice to abort (paper abortion), abandon (legally, same as women), or adopt out. Feminists and manginas can blow smoke all they want. What part of “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) do they not undrstand. Honor your Constitution, or we will do it for you.

4:54 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Jim said...

"Men don't make babies; only women have the choice to make a baby. How about: "her body, her choice, her responsibility."

You must have learned biology in a literature course. Jane Austin, maybe? Do you think women are delicate flowers, where you can just take cuttings and root them in moist soil?

5:11 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous gru said...

It may be her body but it is going to be his body that is going to be forced by law to produce the sweat, pain and effort to generate 18 years of sustenance for a baby only she decided to have. If she is allowed to have control over her body, even after a pregnancy has resulted, he should be allowed to have control over his, again even after a pregnancy has resulted.

Anyway, I have already had a preemptive vasectomy, the only sensible solution I could find for the current situation. So there you go, now don't come complaining about low birth rates, having the country swamped by illegal immigrants, childless women or who is going to pay for your pension. Sincerely I do not give a fig...

5:51 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Sigh. When I think about how hard some people, couples or not, work to have children, it is heartbreaking to see so much rancor about reproductive rights and freedoms.

Same as when I have a case with a single mom with 4 kids from 4 impregnators (father's stay around, impregnators fuck and run,) and all the kids are in state custody for abuse and neglect, and the mom shows up to court pregnant with another abusive man. Shit. It could be depressing.

As a man, I have to watch where I put it. As a woman, you should all watch who you let in. Simple. We need to employ more discretion in our sexual choices. Just because we are free to choose does not mean that every choice is wise or should be supported.

I have never heard a sylable about how to choose who to fuck, and endless dribble about how to fuck. That is backwards and stupid. Books and books about how to not get pregnant or get an abortion if you are, but were is the information concerning WHO to get pregnant with? Abortion has muddied that issue, perhaps beyond clarity. But somewhere, somebody needs to try to address these important concerns and put THAT in public schools too.

Sorry for the cussing if it offends, but cussing is how I feel.

Trey

6:33 PM, November 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dr. melissa-

Our society is filled with such selfish, self-absorbed, indulgent adults that all they can think about is their own gratification and getting away with it with no obligation. Call me a prude.

You're worse than a prude, you're a puritan criminal that thinks that people obtaining legal, consensual sexual pleasure should be "punished" for it somehow, to the point where you are willing to enable, excuse, and even encourage crimes committed against these people.

Sometimes, but not always, contraception works

The conversation in this thread was about women intentionally bypassing contraception so that they could defraud.

Our society falls apart at the seams when no one wants to care for the kid.

No, in the context of this discussion society is somewhat disturbed when some women intentionally conceive in less than favorable circumstances and think that they will "punish" men and make them pick up the tab.

In a larger context you seem to be incorrect as well. As I understand it part of the conlict over men's rights is fathers who want more involvement whose efforts are being blocked by vengeful, hateful, controlling women.

Finally, (and my post is long, too--but you can go and yell at me there, if you'd like, after you read the whole thing) the last thing America needs is one more special-interest group whining about their violated rights.

Knock off the infantilizing nonsense about "whining". You would be vocal too if you were being ripped off and having your rights violated. Men are being assaulted using the courts and public opinon, they are going to work to change that. It's self-defense.

So do only security guards have a right to defend themselves and their rights, or do men in general get to defend themselves as well?

6:37 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Hi Dr. Melissa,

I typically do not go to people's blogs to "yell" at them, that would be rude and uncalled for--we can agree to disagree as we are coming from different viewpoints. I do not like the idea of abortion but I believe it should be legal but I respect that other people feel differently.

That said, women have the choice of when and if, they want to become mothers. Men do not have that choice, not just due to biology but because of man made laws that force them to provide for children they do not want or demands that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives or have a vasectomy. Does that make men "victims"? Not in my eyes. I think consistency in the law is important, not because victims should scream for rights, but because justice demands that we are equal under the law. I know that equality has become a joke but I think true equality of both men and women is important in our legal system. If women have choices, men should have an equal choice, at least the law would then be consistent, not favoring one group over the other.

What I hear you saying is that people should care about children and abortion should be illegal and men and women should step up to support their children or not have sex until they are ready to do so.

6:42 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Dr. Melissa said...

Dr. Helen,

I wasn't referring to you yelling at me (though when I read it again, it looks that way), I knew that wouldn't happen:) I was referring to others who would call me names like, let's see, "You're worse than a prude, you're a puritan criminal that thinks that people obtaining legal, consensual sexual pleasure should be "punished" for it somehow". Ha!

I just don't view a child as a punishment. I view a child as a simple cause-effect.

While I know the topic of this conversation is women who willfully deceive a man (which I believe is reprehensible--go read my post), how on earth do you prove that in a court of law? It is a he-said, she-said argument.

For the guy who got a preemptive vasectomy, good for you. No person who doesn't want a child should procreate. Period. There are too many unwanted children to begin with. I think a vasectomy is a very responsible choice.

The plain fact is that life is not fair. For every guy cornered into an unwanted baby, there is a woman who believed a man who said he'd be there for her forever and bailed--no child support, no companionship,no nothing.

As for the vindictive women blocking their husbands, I've seen that, too, and I've seen the converse. Divorce is destruction of the most important societal contract. Again, while the parents use the child as a ping-pong ball, the child suffers. Honestly, I just have a hard time feeling sorry for the adults. The children fare far worse. The selfishness of the feminists and now the meninists is what gets people to this place to begin with.

Like everyone here, I've had friends and family suffer because of the modern notions of justice and fairness and it usually comes down to some dumb-ass Family Court judge who has more power than any person should have. Lives hang in the balance on this person and few of them know what they're doing. And even if they do, the parents tend to become lying, crazy nuts.

I think that Trey is right. No one is given advice about who to "fuck". But a bad decision in this department has grave, long-term consequences for both women and men. In the heat of passion, that sexual-liberation insists we're entitled to, animal drives supersede rational thought, but when we wake up, we have very human consequences.

By the way, like Glenn, I think that all marriages should be straight up contracts, spelled out in detail. People jump through more legal hoops to get a rental card at Blockbuster. But I digress....

10:35 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger Dr. Melissa said...

Dr. Helen,

This gets me thinking... Perhaps the solution is for men to carry legal release forms like we have at our office. I, Jane Doe, release John Doe from any obligation to parent, financially support or otherwise have contact with any child that could possibly be construed as mine.

I wonder if it'd hold up?

10:41 PM, November 02, 2006  
Blogger titurator veritatis said...

Dear Ms. Oligonicella,

No, that does not sum it up. Your synopsistical ability is lacking and it is quite apparent that you draw a necessary connection between the natural law and the notion of God. My post did not invoke God, you brought the concept of the divine absolute/law-giver into the argument and even if you were to claim that it is inferred in my words, you would be wrong. Your invocation of God in relation to natural law reveals your notional projections and that projection is quite dogmatic.

You state that “latent rules do not exhibit potential thus they should be ignored.” Well, since act and potency are the primary constituents of being as being, (Aristotle) and you assert that a latent concept does not exhibit potency, then, are you saying that the aforesaid latent rule is already in act? If it is in act then the question of potential or potency is moot. Since you state that latent rules do not exhibit potential, then you are a pragmatist pure and simple among other appellations; that is your dogmatic assertion and it is as dogmatic as my supposed theological underpinnings.

Your hang-up on potential shows you’re an extreme realist and that your empirical absolutism, (which lusts after the verifiable laws of nature so as to find the purpose of life in an endeavor where purpose is denied or lusts to simply find rules to exploit in an endeavor to find a utopia where Francis Bacon is the high priest of dialectical materialism) while affirming only the verifiability principle, implicitly denies the criterion of falsifiability. Perhaps you should read some Sir Karl Popper or is he too ancient for you?

The God of my choice? So then you are a polytheist? So then you believe in transcendent being(s)? I would say that you are an immanentist. If there were god(s) or God(s), would my choice propitiate them to provide me with a locution or apparition to make them verifiable? Is this a matter of ‘Do ut dare?’ Does a God of my choice mean that there is a hierarchy of gods and that there is one God over the panoply making the others demi-gods? Or are the vestiges of the demi-gods just faces of the one God? If there is just one God and the rest and demi/semi-gods, then is the principle of God identifiable with nature? Or is it simply a matter of monism? Perhaps you could tell me since you want to bring god(s)/God(s) into this. Perhaps you could tell us all about the concept of law but make sure that when you do, that you specify that your notion of law governs concepts composed of form/matter only, while you also admit your uncertainty concerning those laws which govern form alone. I will let you sum it up for me since I am feeling charitable tonight, as I have demonstrated by enacting your requested format for the purpose of your conceptual processing.

12:27 AM, November 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men do not have that choice, not just due to biology but because of man made laws that force them to provide for children they do not want or demands that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives or have a vasectomy.

Are you implying there are laws that demand a man be celebate or get a vasectomy in some cases? Where?

12:29 AM, November 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dr. melissa-

I was referring to others who would call me names like, let's see, "You're worse than a prude, you're a puritan criminal that thinks that people obtaining legal, consensual sexual pleasure should be "punished" for it somehow". Ha!

That's an accurate statement. You seem to disapprove of sex outside of marriage and you enjoy the idea of people being punished or suffering misfortune for it.

I just don't view a child as a punishment.

Neither do I, quit trying to use that as emotionalist manipulation.

While I know the topic of this conversation is women who willfully deceive a man (which I believe is reprehensible--go read my post), how on earth do you prove that in a court of law? It is a he-said, she-said argument.

I don't doubt it is difficult, but there was one case mentioned from Chicago earlier in the thread. (I don't know if it's accurate.) That shouldn't stop anyone - fraud is fraud, and it should be rooted out and punished, not rewarded. The more it is exposed and becomes familiar to the public and the courts, the more likely it will be caught in the future.

The plain fact is that life is not fair. For every guy cornered into an unwanted baby, there is a woman who believed a man who said he'd be there for her forever and bailed--no child support, no companionship,no nothing.

Now your bias is showing - some women have been jilted so men should be made to suffer fraud, theft, rights violations, etc. We should make life for men as unfair as possible.

Honestly, I just have a hard time feeling sorry for the adults. The children fare far worse. The selfishness of the feminists and now the meninists is what gets people to this place to begin with.

And with the kind of fraud that's been discussed here the woman is victimizing the child by conceiving them in an unfavorable situation without the father's agreement and consent.

In the heat of passion, that sexual-liberation insists we're entitled to, animal drives supersede rational thought, but when we wake up, we have very human consequences.

And this betrays your reasoning. You think it is so reprehensible that adults might want to enjoy sex for it's own sake that you want them to suffer some kind of misfortune for it.

1:29 AM, November 03, 2006  
Blogger Oligonicella said...


titurator veritatis:

No, that does not sum it up. Your synopsistical ability is lacking and it is quite apparent that you draw a necessary connection between the natural law and the notion of God. My post did not invoke God, you brought the concept of the divine absolute/law-giver into the argument and even if you were to claim that it is inferred in my words, you would be wrong. Your invocation of God in relation to natural law reveals your notional projections and that projection is quite dogmatic.

...

As you misidentify my throughout, I'll skip that stuff.

...

Excellent. Your language was convoluted and vague enough as to be unclear to me. Now, perhaps you could succinctly and plainly describe your views? You know, don't use obfuscatory verbage, arcane structure and reference and obliquely referring to other's views. You own thoughts, stated in your own words. Plain English is preferable to vernacular as it has the problem of a change of meaning across groups (e.g. shard).

For instance:

'Natural law'. As you first brought it up, what does that mean to you? If not derived from the supernatural, plainly describe natural law as derived from nature. Keep in mind, the population here contains biologists.

God. Pardon, here's your quote - "This issue is philosophical/theological-religious at the core...". Looks like you brought up theology, not me. Why is the issue p/t-r? Your own words, please.

"Your hang-up ... too ancient for you?" -- You realize that was just an ad hominum, right? Well, two. If I'm an empiricist and believe in modern science, I de facto believe in falsibility.

You appear to not believe in modern science -- "methods are unscrupulous ... no ethical standard ...". Am I correct? If not, why? By the way, exactly how are the methods "unscrupulous"?

Likewise, you seem to have a problem with capitalism. Which economic system do you see as being functional? Not on a utopian level --if there's a curtain you need to walk through, it's a moot exercise -- but on a we're here, let's get there level.

I'm actually interested in reading your views. In plain English.

9:59 AM, November 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dr melissa:

Thank for your support. Now if you would be so kind as to explain why my choice is very responsible to the many women I find that are extremely shocked when they find out that a 36 year old MBA who is never been married, has no kids, makes a six figure + salary, has a nice house, is reasonably good looking and kind to animals has decided to shoot only blanks I would really appreciate it.

You should see their faces really...

The point is not that I did not want to reproduce is that given the present legal and social situation I feel the only sensible option to retain my dignity and freedom is to refrain not only from reproducing but even from having that capability. Were things different I would have retained my reproductive capacity. What really irks me is that a large segment of the society that has forced this choice upon me, the only choice I had since I cannot count in being able to be celibate forever, then berates me for not contributing to the common good by impregnating a woman and supporting her child.

I have told them that if they feel what we need is more warm bodies to mantain our workforce I will be extremely happy sponsoring an immigrant or two but somehow they dislike the idea...

In summary: Ladies, if you impose this draconian regime upon us expect some of us to drop out of the game completly and do not complain about it. After all there are three viable positions in any market: long,short and out...

10:40 AM, November 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um...I think you're quite safe. No need to defend your choice so vigorously. We're all pretty happy with your decision not to reproduce.

10:54 AM, November 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 6:37 said:

"The conversation in this thread was about women intentionally bypassing contraception so that they could defraud."

If you want to act like this is the ONLY issue we are to be talking about here--fine. How often does this happen? You all have cited one instance. I submit it's extremely rare. The woman who does such a thing is a conniving bitch. However, the guy had the opportunity to protect himself, which every person should do. Wear a condom, withdraw,etc. What do we do now with this child? The child should not suffer financially or otherwise because he has a conniving bitch for a mother and a father who didn't have enough sense to protect himself. While abortion is the option here, the conniving bitch certainly won't voluntarily do it. And I do not think it's appropriate to force an abortion.

helen said:

"Men do not have that choice, not just due to biology but because of man made laws that force them to provide for children they do not want or demands that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives or have a vasectomy."

Please stop acting like celibacy and vasectomy are the ONLY choices for the guy in question here. All he had to do was wear a condom and/or withdraw.

tiruator veritatis:

I think it's unfair to accuse oligonicella of willfully or stupidly misrepresenting your remarks. I asked you a simple question to clarify your original statements. What do you mean by authentic femininity and what is this natural law that has been usurped by women? And you basically refused to answer the question. You indicated it would take too long but then you proceeded to type alot of words that didn't respond to the question.

anon 10:40:

Yes, I also wanted to commend your choice, not that it's any of my business to even comment on. I certainly can't explain why some women are shocked. But I certainly get some of that too, as a 38 year old childless woman, who by the way LOVES children. I just think it's the most important thing I could ever do and I wont enter into it lightly. Yes, I know it's unfortunate that you feel you have been forced into this situation by the lack of good choices, shall we say. Please understand, however, that there are LOADS of women out there who live essentially celibate lives because it is equally true that we lack good choices as well.

11:38 AM, November 03, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

An ANON wrote about Dr. Melissa calling her a puritan criminal. Well, Dr. Melissa copped to perhaps being a prude, or holding views that might seem prudish (don't get a chance to use that word often enough!)For the record, I agree with most of her points, and am also comfortable with being labled a prude. To me, I just SEEM a prude because our culture has lost its bearing on this issue, but no biggie.

But puritans are different. And so are criminals. Disagree with Dr. Melissa, call her a prude, but the puritan criminal comment is over the top and not even entertaining. I bet you can do better!

Trey

12:22 PM, November 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tmink-

No, Dr. Melissa expresses a viewpoint that people that have out of wedlock sex deserve to be defrauded, robbed, have their rights violated, etc. One wonders where it would stop - would she just look the other way when a woman was defrauding a man, filing false claims, lying, etc. or would she encourage and help them? After all, it is a good thing when misfortune befalls someone that had sex for its own sake.

After all, some women have been jilted, men should suffer. (Like men haven't been jilted, lied to, cheated on, etc. as well. In some cases they have to fund the raising of the cheater's offspring.)

Religious or moral views are fine, but when you encourage, enable, condone, or even just look the other way when people you don't agree with are being victimized your views have become cowardly, and to an extent criminal.

1:51 PM, November 03, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Anon wrote: "No, Dr. Melissa expresses a viewpoint that people that have out of wedlock sex deserve to be defrauded, robbed, have their rights violated, etc."

My reading of her opinion is that people need to be shrewd and realize that when you lay down with a snake, you are likely to get bit. I know people who are ugly and mean with their morality, and I hate that like you do. But I do not see that in her posts. So we disagree about her stating that people who make bad decisions deserve to be defrauded.

I do agree with most of your last point, that people who delight in other people's suffering have lost my respect and the moral high ground if they ever had it. My understanding of Christianity is that it is about love and forgiveness. My Christian morality concerns me and my behavior, and that is a full time job leaving precious little time to police anyone else. That "Christian leader" in Colorade would have done well to attend to his own life for sure.

In closing we can ask Dr. Melissa if she has or she would take a man's side in a conflict when he has been wronged. Seems silly to write out, because I think I know the answer, but there it is!

Trey

2:10 PM, November 03, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home