Playing Abortion Chess
by Marc H. RudovPotent Feminist Weapon
In the Seinfeld episode called “The Couch,” there’s a famous scene in which Elaine and Jerry are sitting in Poppie’s restaurant, awaiting the duck Jerry ordered days in advance. Elaine expresses great anticipation about partaking of the vaunted fowl, while ever-cynical Jerry grumbles that he would be just as happy eating a Paccino’s pizza at home. In disgust, Elaine promptly announces her boycott of Paccino’s — because of its anti-abortion owner. To test Elaine’s policy, Jerry summons Poppie to their table to opine on the matter. Upon hearing Poppie vociferously denounce abortion, Elaine storms out of the restaurant, followed by the other outraged female patrons — with their annoyed husbands and boyfriends, still eating the meals they had purchased, in tow.
The imagery of this restaurant scene — strident feminists dictating the lives and destinies of men — is an accurate metaphor for life in the USA. And, no issue galvanizes feminists and gives them more power over men than abortion. Far more than a medical procedure, abortion is a potent feminist weapon in the political game of chess. Let me state for the record that I support abortion but reject “pro-choice,” a misnomer, as the way to characterize it.
Pro-choice is a politically correct, feminist term that really means pro-woman. It conveys upon women all reproductive rights and choices. The Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court gives women the exclusive power to opt out of parenthood. Accordingly, because Roe v. Wade violates the equal-protection clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the National Center for Men, on March 9, 2006, filed a lawsuit called Roe v. Wade for MenTM — asking the federal government to recognize and uphold a man’s equal right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. The National Organization for Women (NOW), of course, immediately repudiated this lawsuit — equality for men is the last thing NOW wants.
In any American election, a politician must avow his “pro-choice” stance to get elected or reelected. A nominee to the US Supreme Court must articulate his acceptance and support of the Roe v. Wade decision, if he expects the US Senate to consent to his nomination and the feminists not to pillory him.
Then, there is the matter of parental notification in cases when pregnant minors seek to have abortions. As parents in many states have learned, if, through special elections or referenda, they demand such notification, NOW will fight them. State supreme courts, such as the one in California, have ruled that a girl’s right to privacy supersedes her parents’ right to be parents. Yet, this same minor needs her parents’ permission to take medication in school or to get her ears pierced. This insanity illustrates that it is abortion NOW cares about, not the lives or traumas or families of young, pregnant girls.
From the aforementioned Seinfeld episode, elections, Supreme Court nominations, and parental-notification battles, one might get the impression that: 1) feminists control the national agenda, 2) feminists speak for all women, and 3) abortion is the number-one issue for all women. Are these points true?
Let’s compare NOW bosses to union bosses, whose main agenda is job-preservation. Union bosses formerly controlled both the national agenda and the players. NOW still controls the national agenda and the players — it delivers female votes by scaring women and blackmailing “skeletons-in-the-closet” senators into passing anti-male legislation.
NOW leaders, like their union brethren, to this day wrongly believe that they speak for the rank and file. Hardly. If women were so fanatical about abortions, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would be zero, wouldn’t it? Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood — out of narcissism and for the child support.
The Road to Fraudulent Maternity
The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 744,600 US abortions in 1973, 1.6 million in 1990 (the peak year), and 1.3 million in 2004. Yet, the US population rose 45% in that 31-year period, from 203 million to 294 million. The Brookings Institution claims that, in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrates were 24% and 3.1% for blacks and whites, respectively. Those figures grew by 1990 to 64% and 18%, respectively. Now, they are 70% and 35%, respectively. Abortions, relative to population growth, are decreasing, while illegitimate births are rising. Creating fatherless homes is trendy!
In the course of everyday life, tort laws provide remedies to protect us from those who would mislead and defraud us, such as unscrupulous bankers, retailers, realtors, car dealers, and contractors. If, however, a woman makes false claims about her fertility or use of birth control, tort law hides under the proverbial desk, with family courts offering men this warning: caveat fornicator.
For those who don’t grasp that, in the US, women own most of the civil rights, have little regard for men, and are likely to choose child support over abortion, allow me to expose their three-phase path to “legalized” fraudulent maternity. Yes, thanks to feminist sycophants, family courts everywhere permit and encourage women to become unwed mothers, and reward them — at the expense of men — for their irresponsible behavior, as follows:
Three “Twisted” Phases of Legalized Fraudulent Maternity
- DisTORTION: twisting the facts of her fertility and use of birth control
- ConTORTION: twisting her body into amazing positions during sex
- ExTORTION: twisting his wallet through 18 years of child support.
Male Guilt
To fathom the genesis of American misandry, I look to Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Dr. Steele authored White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Steele claims that, because of history, whites are forever stigmatized as racists and accused of “blaming the victims” if they encourage blacks to engage in hard work, self-reliance, and moral responsibility. Because of “white guilt,” blacks continue to play victims, receive deferential treatment from whites, and make excuses for not growing.
Strident feminism has analogously stigmatized men, also effecting a destructive outcome: lawmakers, governors, presidents, judges, and jurists have “male guilt.” They erroneously view women as “victims,” defer to them, and tolerate their excuses for not growing — perpetuating the endless cycle of unwed motherhood and blaming men for their mistakes.
I fantasize about the governor of a prominent US state, pen in hand, in front of microphones, journalists, and cameras at this bill-signing ceremony:
“It is my honor to sign into law today the Responsible Mother Act of 2008. We are ending the disgraceful pandemic of fatherless homes and fraudulent maternity. From this day forward, unwed mothers-to-be have two choices: abortion, a critical female right, or raising and supporting their children alone without child support. Women choosing single motherhood will sign certificates of selfishness, a copy of which each child, upon attaining the age of 16, will receive. The era of rewarding miscreant moms for their irresponsibility, anti-male fraud, and selfishness is hereby terminated.”
When writing my book, I coined this marketing tagline: Life with her needn’t be an endless game of chessTM. Originally, I meant it to warn men not to waste time and energy with women whose actions, words, and thoughts must be anticipated five iterations in advance. But, I now see another parallel. First, the objective of chess is to debilitate the king by cornering him and removing his options. Second, the queen is the most-powerful piece on the board. Third, the least-powerful pieces, the pawns, resemble children whom mothers bear and sacrifice solely to gain child support. It’s as if NOW invented chess!
NoNonsense Bottom Line
Abortion is a critical option to prevent unwanted children, ruined lives, and destroyed livelihoods. Yet, women do not universally use this option, as it is not their number-one issue — despite what NOW says. Not to worry: feminists created the child-support industry, too. They covered all the bases, but they never use child support as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Only abortion. When feminists claim to speak for all women, they are lying. Abortion, for the feminists, is a powerful means to checkmate men. It’s worked so far.
Before having sexual intercourse, men and women must discuss what they will do in the case of an unintended pregnancy. Keep in mind that the woman can lie in this discussion. If you don’t trust her answer, or if she desires to bear a child you don’t want, put your pants back on and leave.
When men gain the equal right to opt out of unintended pregnancies, women who unilaterally choose motherhood will become solely responsible for raising and supporting those children. Then, the out-of-wedlock birthrate will plummet, and abortion just may peter out as a useful weapon in political chess.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 27 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Marc, you wrote:
“Abortion is a critical option to prevent unwanted children, ruined lives, and destroyed livelihoods.”
1. Abortion does not “prevent” an unwanted child. Rather, it destroys an existing child that is merely at an early stage in its development. Perhaps the “Plan B” morning after pill would prevent an unwanted child, by preventing conception.
2. Abortion, rather than averting a ruined life, causes the ruin of a life. The baby’s life is anhilated. In addition, a phenomenon known as Post Abortion Syndrome causes profound negative psychological damage to many women who have aborted, causing palpable damage (i.e. ruin) to their lives as well.
3. Abortion may save a woman’s livelihood, at the expense of a baby’s life. I guess your moral values are made apparent in that statement, favoring career over a precious human life that was not thrust into her life without warning, but rather created by her (and his) actions. What selfish tripe.
I start out from the premise that abortion takes an innocent human life. With that in mind, I read your defense of the legality of abortion and can easily substitute the word “abortion” in your column with other words, such as infanticide — and your logic is essentially saying the same thing. The ability of a woman to exercise this “critical option” to terminate a life within the womb is no different to me than if she had killed the baby outside the womb; amazingly, your logic would still apply even in that situation (and you would derive your legitimacy from the legality of infanticide, if that too were legal).
I propose an alternative view. Rather than lust for an equal right with women to be irresponsible (by advocating that men should be able to opt out of parenthood and their financial obligations to their offspring), why not exhort both sexes to instead be equally responsible?
This all boils down to sex. Sex is a biological act that WILL produce a child, given the right circumstances. Given that sex is 97 percent of the time consentual, why excuse either willing party from the ramifications? In other words (as applies to men specifically), either wear a condom and accept its implicit risks or keep it in your pants! Don’t push for legislation that allows men, like women, to be irresponsible for their sexual behavior. Push for all men and women to be equally responsible instead.
Abortion, again, takes an innocent human life. It is that simple. It is not “chess,” Marc. It is inhumane, it is not vital, it is irresponsible 97 percent of the time, and it is not rightly seen as a legal tactic. It IS rightly seen as human carnage, and you miss that point profoundly.
I think by now, you know my position on the “abortion issue.” For the record.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 15th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Another fine article by Marc Rudov.
I like the way that he de-bunks feminist rhetoric in terms of their creation and perpetuation of “male guilt” for the express purpose of shackling and supressing men’s instincts to press for their own individual rights and freedoms.
What Marc calls “maternity fraud”, Dave Usher refers to as “reproductive rape” - both descriptors that provide an insight into the feminists’ assault on men’s reproductive rights under the guise of protecting “the victims”, i.e. anyone born with a vagina instead of a penis.
I particularly liked Marc’s explanation of how “pro-choice” worked and what the phrase ACTUALLY means, as opposed to how it’s been spun by the feminazis:
“Pro-choice is a politically correct, feminist term that really means pro-woman. It conveys upon women all reproductive rights and choices.”
It’s no wonder that the hags-from-hell in NOW fought against Roe vs. Wade for Men, as he points out.
Marc is one of the finest sources of practical information for young men, besides Tom Leykis.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
John Dias,
I respect your views on abortion. When I was talking about destroying a livelihood, who said I meant the woman’s livelihood?
Also, birth control is not 100% effective. While I appreciate your feelings, look around you — too many unwanted children. Not good for them or society. Abortion is harsh; so is crime.
Finally, if women know they will have to support their own children, they will stop having them. Abortion won’t be the big factor — prevention of conception will. Follow the money!
September 15th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“Finally, if women know they will have to support their own children, they will stop having them. Abortion won’t be the big factor  prevention of conception will. Follow the money!”
Precisely, Marc.
Through bayonet-point child support laws and the draconian enforcement, feminists have rammed through our legislatures and courts THE INCENTIVES for women to defraud men of money and otherwise trample on men’s rights and freedoms.
The feminists spun child support as defending the poor “victim” - the defenseless women that callous men impregnated and abandoned.
The reality is that they provided a means for predatory, egotistical women to extract $$$$$ from men, using a phenomenon as powerful as their own sex drives against them.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Marc, in your reply to my comment you wrote:
“When I was talking about destroying a livelihood, who said I meant the woman’s livelihood?”
I stand corrected. You meant that the carnage of an innocent human being (not-so-innocently created by mom and dad) stands to preserve the livelihood of men, rather than women. The saving grace being its benefit to men. Silly me!
Thank you for respecting my views. I respect your right to express yours, but not the view itself. How can I? To me, it’s heinous and barbaric, unconscionable, harmfully selfish, evil. I simply can’t respect an opposite view, a view that would condone the legality of this. I do respect the first amendment, and the rights it grants to both me and you. But we’re talking about a life here — and no one holds a gun to consenting adults’ heads, forcing them to create that life. Sexual pleasure seems (for too many, I fear) to be the end that justifies the means in this carnage. How is it any different from Susan Smith, a woman who locked her kids in a car that she backed into a lake (drowning them)?
And about birth control, you’re right that it’s not 100% effective — therefore, it provides no legitimate excuse for a parent to escape his or her obligations to children that result from sexual activity. The priority is not the preservation of the orgasm, free of consequences. The priority is the emphasis on responsible behavior. Contraception helps lessen the chances of pregnancy, but it ought not absolve one of responsibility if the contraception fails. If a child is created, remember that both parents assume risks when they hop into bed. So far, women have been able to opt out of responsibility as human beings (by aborting their children), and opt out of responsibility as parents (by becoming welfare queens and child support bandits). Why do you cry out for men to emulate the same abrogation of responsibility? What is this race to the lowest rung of the moral totem pole?
When a child is brought into being, both parents should rise up and support that child. Argue that child support laws should be relaxed, or that child custody laws should ensure fathers play an equal role in their kids’ lives. But don’t advocate killing off kids.
I find it offensive that you imply abortion is “good for the aborted kids” (the inverse of “not good for the unwanted kids born into the world). By that logic, wouldn’t it be good for society if we killed off all the feminists?
Respecting the sanctity of human life benefits all of society, by putting a high premium on the BASIC value of each individual. I benefit from that kind of society. I could walk through a desolate park or a dark alley with increased confidence in my security — or that of any other — if such a society were the priority of more people who respect the inherent value of all life, especially innocent life.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 15th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
“And about birth control, you’re right that it’s not 100% effective  therefore, it provides no legitimate excuse for a parent to escape his or her obligations to children that result from sexual activity.”
Possibly the shoddiest attempt at logic that I’ve read today.
Birth control is not 100% effective, but women have been provided with multiple OTHER means of escaping the responsibility of parenthood if they so choose.
Men essentially have zero reproductive rights.
You might accept that sort of inequality, and be perfectly willing to submit to reproductive rape at the whim of some egotistical woman, either because she lied and you were careless or unluckly while engaging in sexual intercourse.
I certainly do NOT accept unequal reproductive rights between men and women.
And thankfully, growing numbers of men don’t, either.
You might believe in the “sanctity of life”, but with world population above 6 billion and rising, the “sanctity” of life is being somewhat over-rated.
And for those children born to thoughtless, egotistical women who practice reproductive rape and who are often neglected, ignored, deprived of a father, or otherwise given marginal interest and support, your “sanctity” doesn’t do a damned bit of good.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Fourthwire:
Yes, let’s equal the playing field. Remove abortion as a right, relax child support requirements, and support shared custody. Remove the right of mothers to kill children, and alienate them from their fathers. Remove their rights to be irresponsible, so that they can join the ranks of responsible men.
DON’T equalize the playing field by giving men the right to participate in the irresponsible behavior women now legally enjoy. Instead, take away the right of women to be irresponsible, and then we’ll all be equal.
John Dias
September 15th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
“Yes, let’s equal the playing field. Remove abortion as a right, relax child support requirements, and support shared custody. Remove the right of mothers to kill children, and alienate them from their fathers. Remove their rights to be irresponsible, so that they can join the ranks of responsible men.”
Why REMOVE rights instead of EQUALIZING rights?
No reason to create any more unwanted children in the world than necessary.
“parents” (and I’m using the term loosely in this instance) who don’t want to have or raise children, but whose sexual acts create children tend to make awful parents.
“Instead, take away the right of women to be irresponsible, and then we’ll all be equal.”
No, take away her INCENTIVES to be irresponsible and we’ll all be equal (plus fewer unwanted children will grow up neglected, abused, and otherwise given a miserable existence).
September 15th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Let me make one additional point. I hate the term “reproductive rape.” When you put your pecker into a woman’s pootinanny, and both of you consent, I don’t see the rape. Lack of discretion on your part? Yes. Perhaps lack of honesty on her part? Yes. Rape? Not on your life!
What part of R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y do you not understand?
And about your comment that respecting the sanctity of human life is naive, let me say this. Respecting life is not simply limited to promoting birth over abortion. When my son was born, I made a commitment to be there for him as a father — through and through — all the way. There are loads of data that support the notion that active involvement by nurturing fathers lessens the likelihood that children will engage in violent behavior later in life, increases the likelihood that they too will be respectful of the lives of others, vastly enhances childrens’ prospects for success and happiness in life, and likely perpetuates this healthy cycle. THIS IS RESPECT FOR LIFE!
John Dias
September 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
John,
I do believe you are getting carried away with your pro-life agenda. We understand your view. We respect your view. But, we are not going to change our views.
If you read my article carefully, very carefully, you will see that it is not about abortion.
Marc
September 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
“Let me make one additional point. I hate the term “reproductive rape.†”
Big deal. I hate it when men are forced to SUBMIT to reproductive rape.
“When you put your pecker into a woman’s pootinanny, and both of you consent, I don’t see the rape.”
Then let me use little words that even you might understand………
“rape” is usually used to refer to a sexual act to which a woman has not given her consent.
In fact, a man can be prosecuted for rape after first receiving consent, beginning sexual intercourse, until at some point the woman changes her mind.
“reproductive rape” occurs when a man has not given consent for his sexual partners to use his sperm to claim him as a parent, against his will.
And since the term is VERY descriptive of those egotistical bitches that practice reproductive rape, you can count on seeing the term more and more.
“What part of R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y do you not understand?”
What part of E-Q-U-A-L–R-E-P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-V-E–R-I-G-H-T-S do you not understand?
“Respecting life is not simply limited to promoting birth over abortion.”
In fact, promoting birth over abortion is not at all about respecting life. People who TRULY respect life don’t expect egotistical women to be able to suck money from men in the process of giving birth to unwanted children.
“When my son was born, I made a commitment to be there for him as a father  through and through  all the way. ”
Good for you…. and him. Mind you, I don’t want to know your personal details.
However, your choice to breed is not mine.
And after America’s women lose their financial incentives to breed irresponsibly through reproductive rape, the number of single mothers WILL fall.
“There are loads of data that support the notion that active involvement by nurturing fathers lessens the likelihood that children will engage in violent behavior later in life, increases the likelihood that they too will be respectful of the lives of others, vastly enhances childrens’ prospects for success and happiness in life, and likely perpetuates this healthy cycle. THIS IS RESPECT FOR LIFE!”
Correct. But those children born to women who don’t give a rat’s ass about providing their children with nurturing, WILLING fathers only care about their own needs.
And that’s NOT “RESPECT FOR LIFE”. That’s “SHEER EGOTISM”.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Very well, Marc. This was your column and I have said my piece. I agree that men should have more options (ostensibly the point of your article), but by now you know just which options I don’t consider valid.
By the way, I bought your book last week and am now on the 5th chapter. I do enjoy it. Please continue to write about how men can achieve liberation by improving their selectivity in choosing a partner; that is the most powerful message you have ever sent.
John Dias
September 15th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Sorry, typo:
“And since the term is VERY descriptive of the actions of those egotistical bitches that practice reproductive rape, you can count on seeing the term more and more.”
September 15th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
John,
Glad you like my book. Did you request my BONUS NoNonsense Rules of Internet Dating? It is for people who have bought my book since July 25, 2006: http://themansnononsenseguidetowomen.com/PopUps/SpecialOffer.html
Now, please register for my NoNonsense Dating Tips: http://themansnononsenseguidetowomen.com/PopUps/Subscribe.html
Marc
September 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
John is right. Fourthwire, do you really hate women so much you’re willing to kill babies to get even?
September 15th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
“John is right.”
Not in my opinion, he’s not.
“Fourthwire, do you really hate women so much you’re willing to kill babies to get even?”
Squiggy, which moron told you that I “really hate women”………
……. and why are you stupid enough to believe her?
I don’t “hate women” but I certainly dislike “bitches”, and particularly “misandrist bitches”.
I also don’t particularly care for those men who aren’t bright enough to understand that chivalry is one of feminism’s best tools to deprive men of equal rights.
I’m also not particularly fond of the chronically weak-minded…..;-)
As for your rather weak-minded assertion that I’m “willing to kill babies to get even”:
- Perhaps you don’t mind someone reaching into your wallet, your bank account for 18 years.
Many men do mind, however, particularly if those men are being forced to pay for something that they never wanted.
Most men who mind are those men who realize that they can be forced to pay, pay, pay because gender apartheid and reproductive rape were institutionalized in their country.
Women aren’t being forced to raise or pay for babies that they did not want.
Why then are MEN being forced to pay for babies that they did not want?
September 15th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Hi Marc!
Once again you are spot on! Your thought on being “Pro choice as a misnomer” actually helps me clarify and strengthen my own view on abortion which often gets me into trouble on both sides of the issue. I feel if a woman wants an abortion, she should go ahead and do it, but please do me and everyone else out there a simple favor. When and if she decides she wants to have a child in her late 30s and finds out that she can’t, due possibly to the fact that one or two abortions might cause complications later on, then she shouldn’t make her infertility my problem or your problem or everyone else’s problem. Deal with the consequences, either adopt a child, get a cat or a dog or take up botany and shut up!
But I often think that fertility becomes the real issue with women pushing 40 rather than choice. What gets on my nerves is when a woman goes from her 20s saying it is her “right to choose” and then gets to her late 30s and even early 40s when biology starts to dictate behavior and decides that it is now her “right to have a child” regardless of whether or not nature wants to work. We live in the 21st century and we are not going back to kitchen table abortions, but the safest abortion in the world will not guarantee a woman’s fertility if she wants children later on. If she has a child that is healthy later on in life I think that is great but if not well then refer back to my last sentence of the previous paragraph!
I have said that to a lot of women who are on both sides of the coin concerning the issue and they are both left in stunned silence and I personally don’t care anymore. Some women unfortunately can’t grasp that point of view because they don’t want the responsibility to do so.
September 15th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Squiggy, it is obvious that you don’t pay child support. Get off your hypocrisy soapbox.
Again, this article is NOT about abortion — if you read it carefully. Did you?
If you are so concerned about killing babies, tell all your DNA-terrorist sisters to get tubal ligations. Then, they can’t get pregnant and foist their responsibilities onto men.
You can’t buy a car unless you can finance it. Yet, society gives women permission to “buy” babies but force men to pay for them.
A DNA terrorist — a miscreant mom — is akin to a person who steals my car and then, with the help of the legal system, forces me to buy it back, over 18 years. Somehow, this arrangement is acceptable to women. Why not? It appeals to their sense of “fairness.”
September 15th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Here’s randyf’s description from the message board associated with the child-support article on mensnewsdaily covering aspects of men’s rights including reproductive rape.
I edited it a bit.
1) Women can decide whether to support a child or not; present law gives no choice to men.
Women’s legal rights involving reproduction include:
abortion, abandonment (within 72 hrs.) adoption, keeping the child, and collecting child support.
Men’s legal rights: The right to pay. Not necesssarily the right to see or be with his own child.
Fight in court, hope to win even if not the father.
In some cases men have been financially enslaved even though they were NOT even the biological father, for the “INTEREST OF THE CHILD”, or go to jail.
The actual interests being served are not necessarily the child’s, of course.
2) Child rearing is dominated by the female, who can withhold privileges from the father to even SEE his own children.
Men who object can simply be fraudulently accused of domestic violence, spousal rape, or child abuse as a sure-fire pretext for assuming full custody of the child, the house, and more.
3) Women are not held accountable for child support money spending. They can spend it on new clothing, shoes, makeup, spa, new boyfriends……. whatever the female wants to spend it on, unless hard abuse of the child can be proven.
Walmart and Good Will for the kids’ needs. Neiman-Marcus for mom, though if she wants it.
4) Men can be incarcerated in prison through unjust rulings in Family Court, such as not taking into account a father’s true income when determining child support.
Women have garnered most of the civil, social, and reproductive rights and privileges in America.
Guess who gets the responsibilities, though…..
6) A bit off-topic but relevant to institutionalized misandry and even child abuse:
Even female pedophiles are treated much differently than male pedophiles .
Has anyone heard of a man being sentenced to house arrest after having sex on multiple occasions with a 14 year old?
I haven’t.
But there she was on TV (Debra Lefave), the child rapist, saying “he wanted it, I gave it to himâ€Â.
Think that such a ploy would work in court for a male pedophile-teacher?
She doesn’t have to serve a day in prison.
Yet the hell-hags from NOW, who trot out tearful stories involving children whenever doing so will further their goal of winning more rights and privileges for women at the expense of men’s rights and privileges are curiously silent about Debra Lefave’s case.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I turn my back for a few hours and look what happens! 19 comments before I am even aware of this article!
There is a solution to this problem that does not involve murdering any unborn children or passing any new laws:
Scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law!
No one has the right to engage in armed robbery, extortion, or peonage, whether with or without the aid of tax funded tyrants.
No one.
It is a CRIME.
Just as there is no excuse for domestic violence (since when do angry people need an excuse, he-he), neither is there any excuse for violating the Constitution of the United States and the 50 state constitutions.
When we have family court judges violating the rest of the Constitution, we have a someone in Reno using the Second Amendment!
Once we get that through everybody’s THICK skull, (and I don’t mean fast moving lead, but sometimes that what gets through your thick skull when nothing else does) we can begin to replace present insanity with a healthy regime of American freedom and family law.
Is all of this so difficult for everyone to grasp? Seems pretty simple to me.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
“Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhoodâ€â€out of narcissism and for the child support.”
This is absolutely correct.
And any family law attorney can point to scores of cases where this is fact.
September 16th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.
While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child. He doesn’t care what she’s done to you. And he doesn’t deserve to be killed because you got screwed over.
And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?
There, I’ve said my piece, now I’m out of this.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:37 am
You know there has already been a sort of ‘real world’ test of making women responsible for their birth rates. When welfare reform stopped funding additional children while the mom was on the dole, additional births while on welfare dropped precipitously. Hmm what happens if we make non-welfare single women responsible for their birthrates?
September 16th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.
Abortion is premeditated murder, no more, no less (state sanctioned no less).
If you don’t like the laws concerning peonage and parental rights, get off your duffs and start campaining to change them.
In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced. I realize that in this society keeping your word is becoming passe, but too many people believe that quitting is the best alternative. Marriage is difficult. It requires hard work. Unless one or the other is intent on killing their spouse or children, work it out, or suffer the consequences.
The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.
September 16th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Will Malven,
You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.
Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.
If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.
Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Marc, you and those like you are the ones presuming to “preach.” It is you who are using the Courts to impose your beliefs on others. If you believe in abortion then pass a law allowing it. Stop using the courts to thwart the will of the people.
“Do you know how many married” men “have affairs,” impregnate another woman and then abandon the child? Plenty. Talk about an empty argument…
Your very statement convicts you as a woman-hater. For every woman how cheats on her husband, there is a man who is there betraying his brother man. How can you condemn the woman without condemning the man as well?
I am not “naive” I am a realist and understand that what I say is not popular. That does not invalidate the truth of it.
The “laissez faire” culture that you promote is one of the primary reasons for the decline of American society. Civilization imposes a thin veneer of morality on us because the system has proven its worth. It is that morality that separates us from rutting deer. If you wish to behave like animals, then do so. Just don’t pollute the sanctity of marriage by using it as a cover to engage in sex.
And if you choose to spill your bile on the rest of us then you better be able to accept the criticism.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Mr. Malven,
You are yet another reader who has not read. You have such a vitriolic anti-abortion agenda, that, when you see the word “abortion” in print, you go nuts. You feel the need to teach us about murder.
Had you read my article — really read it — you would have recognized that it isn’t about abortion. You are so blind to women, you cannot allow yourself to accept any criticism of them. That’s curious.
I can accept criticism — when it’s apt and well-founded. So far, I haven’t seen any.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Any man who can make a blanket statement and I quote you, “Women are NOT to be trusted,” is a woman hater. As an attitude, “that’s curious.”
What the matter some girlie beat you up in the past?
You fail to answer any of my response to your earlier attack on me. Your apparent goal is to gain approval for a contemptable and irresponsible lifestyle. You wish to sow without reaping (taking responsibility for your actions). Chivalry (fr. chevalier-knight) is not a creation of the women, it was an idea conceived of by Elizabethan men who believed in treating women with respect and dignity rather than as chattel.
“The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.” American Heritage Dictionary
Chivalry is dead only if men become what the feminist accuse us of being. Your whole patois is an ode to selfishness and self-centeredness. It is a product of the “me” generation attitude of what can I get out of life rather than what can I contribute to life.
A man can be a man without denigrating women, and a man can be respectful of women without being cowed by them. With freedom comes responsibility.
Good luck with it.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Is the question still should a man have the right to choose, just like a woman can, whether or not he wants to be a parent? If men could legally separate from a child or prospective one, just like a woman can, when he finds himself to be in the unfortunate position of having played a part in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, perhaps selfish women would wake up. Far too many people have an “it is all about me attitude” and a classic example is a women deciding to have a child without a willing and wanting partner.
What can we all do to see that men gain the same right women have to decide whether or not to become a parent?
September 18th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
KateM:
The choice to become a parent exists in all human beings. Refraining from sexual activity ensures 100% that you will not become a parent (except for paternity fraud).
Using contraception can reduce your risks of becoming a parent, but then again the risk (however diminished) is still there if a pregnancy results from contraception that failed.
Can we get back to the notion that once a child is brought into being, his parents should have no “rights” to kill or abandon him? Why do I keep hearing a chorus of men wishing they had the equal right (with women) to do just that? Why do so many men who advocate for this kind of child-hostile policy fail to visualize the poor kid to will be left behind, if and when such a “right” is ever exercised? This kind of policy ought not be seen as just another way for men to “level the legal playing field” with women. We are talking about lives here — the lives of children. And for what? The right to have an orgasm with no consequences? Since when did an orgasm take precedence over the needs of one’s own offspring?
And as for those who simply say “well I never intended to become a parent, I just wanted to screw her; she tricked me” I say GROW UP. Either keep it in your pants, or accept the risks that come with sexual activity (namely that you risk becoming a parent, each and every time).
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
“Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded†is pretty pathetic.”
Focus, squiggy.
I assume that you’re weak-minded NOT because I disagree with you but because your own assumptions (such as the one that I “hate women” are rather weak-minded.
Try to keep up, if you can.
“While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child.”
Indeed, quite a few women treat men like crap, and furthermore, those women don’t give a rat’s ass about their children……. otherwise they would only reproduce with men WHO ARE WILLING TO BE FATHERS.
“And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?”
That same argument ought to hold true for women and men equally……. but if you were a bit brighter and more observant, you would notice that women’s superior reproductive rights DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY KEEP THEIR PANTS ZIPPED.
And men ought to share those superior reproductive rights, no matter whether “geniuses” like yourself enjoy gender apartheid or not.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
“You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.”
Actually, I know that John and squiggy are WRONG since their sort of “thinking” led to the sort of gender apartheid rampant in America today.
Preaching “responsibility” is fine, provided that it’s done to both sexes.
Holding one sex to a higher level of responsibility and to higher standards for behavior (which are precisely the case for boys and men in America) is NOT OK.
And providing women with those old-fashioned notions of chivalry simply plays into the feminazis’ game of exploiting men while denying them equal civil, social, and reproductive rights.
As mentioned previously, take away women’s current incentives to commit reproductive rape and their tendency to commit it will drop.
“In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced.”
Darned right it’s an archaic concept.
Worse yet, it’s a downright sexist one since women aren’t required to “keep their pants zipped” given their multiple means of avoiding unwanted parenthood that are not available to men.
I advocate to men that they not bother to marry at all, since that institution currrently provides ZERO benefits to men that are not also available to men WITHOUT marriage….. although it does provide plenty of RISKS to men.
“The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.”
No, the courts will continue to be more sympathetic to men until men learn to ignore individuals like yourself and continue to make men’s rights a vocal issue.
As for your asinine advice to “get over it and grow up”, perhaps you ought to try to remove your head from your rectum - you may enjoy living with inferior social, civil, and reproductive rights, but that’s not necessarily the choice of more intelligent, not to mention fair-minded individuals.
Time to wake the hell up, Will - it’s the 21st century and men following your “advice” typically get their asses kicked in courts and legislatures by the feminazis and their beneficiaries.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
“Will Malven,
You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags†him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.
Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.
If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.
Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.”
Will, I agree with your post above so much that I only wish that I had written it myself.
Concerning a wide variety of topics including domestic violence, paternity fraud, reproductive rape, false rape accusations, and more, individuals like Will Malven are flying their white flags, seemingly content to be fourth-class citizens in their own nations.
Happily, those sorry individuals are becoming the exception, rather than the rule, as greater numbers of American men are heeding men like yourself, Tom Leykis, and any number of men’s rights activists.
I’ve read Will Malven before, and tend to agree with much of his political works, but not necessarily his posts regarding social or reproductive issues.
I suspect that his age is the culprit - that he’s unable to contend with those 21st century political and social realities that younger men face.
It’s a bit like those World War I elderly generals, when facing stalemates and trench warfare, repeatedly sent massive frontal wave assaults at entrenched machine gun positions with their interlocking fields of fire……… because those generals were too old to think of any other options.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Chivalry isn’t dead, but feminism shot the horse between the eyes with a 12 gauge.
How is that for being flippant? Feminism allows women to have it both ways. A disproportionate preponderance of women are not to be trusted because they know that if a man lies to them that they can reap the benefits of his lie financially. They are only ethical within themselves and can hold a man in a relationship hostage based on something that happened to them in a previous relationship.
If a man marries a woman and he cheats on her later on, he has to pay her alimony because he broke a vow in front of God. But it doesn’t often work the other way around. Unfortunately these women don’t want honesty from men because if a man is honest with a woman at the beginning of any date, the chances of him seeing her again are next to nil.
Judging by a lot of my past experiences I think that a woman would rather prefer that a man lie to them than be honest because she will always know she has the upper hand in the relationship. That is masochism and I simply refuse to live like that and I have friends and co workers who do. But what many women don’t understand is that the minute she makes a man responsible for her happiness is the second that she starts to push him away and then trouble could start to brew. Men and women are both equally responsible for their happiness in a relationship and it should never be lopsided.
I won’t to lie to a woman on a date even if I know that I would never see her again. I might feel disappointed but I have to remind myself that I know at least my wallet is still safe. I have had dates with women who have great careers who have asked me how much was in my tax refund this year or how much is in my 401K. I have replied to them, “Why do you want to know you are already planning the alimony?” That silences them and I know there is nothing more to come from a date like that and I end up shutting it down. A part of me applauds these women for such an honest question even if it is superficial and the sign that my time is being wasted.
We live in the 21st century and no matter how many advances women have made financially and in the workplace playing field where technology is the leveler, women can still benefit in their private lives from an archaic view that should have been tossed aside. Fair or unfair, right or wrong, this is how the rules are set up. And most women out there don’t have a problem with that at all because everything in the end of any relationship is beneficial to them and punitive to men.
When people say the institution of marriage is in trouble, I tell people don’t blame the institution. Put the blame the industry that is undermining the institution. One time at a bar after work, I had a conversation with a woman who just came out of a bitter divorce and she old me that “Marriage is a right of passage that starts with the florist and ends with the divorce lawyer.” As jaded as she sounded, she had a very interesting point.
Last year when the “Runaway Bride” from Georgia made headlines, I went to the mall to get a haircut. I walked to the reception desk and about 10 feet away from me was a woman in her late 20s who was a bridezilla on quaaludes. This drama “queen for a day” just had her hair done for her special day and was trying out how her veil train would fit. She was just making a total spectacle and embarrassment of herself. She was rude and insulting to her mother standing next to her while also berating and personally insulting the stylist who did her hair. Everyone working in the place looked like they were walking on eggshells at a funeral home. When I mentioned to the woman at the reception desk that I wanted a haircut, the bridezilla shouted at me, “Excuse me but I was there first.” So I replied, “Correct. You were standing here but now you are over there.” I turned away looking at the receptionist who said to me “she is just awful!”
So after my haircut I walked around the mall for a half hour and as I walked past the food court, here comes the queen for a day, complete with veil train still in her hairdo, preening into the food court to stop and get ice cream. She orders her cone and then berates the girl working behind the counter. I just shook my head thinking it really is an industry and I pity the poor bastard who is marrying her.
Go to any shopping mall across the country on a weekend that has a bridal expo where everyone from florists, tuxedo rentals, limo services, cosmetologists, hair stylists, DJs, travel agents with honeymoon packages, invitation printers, photographers, sketch artists, portrait painters, videographers, you name it have a booth set up to show displays and hand out business cards. It is out of control but then again I also believe in honesty. Why not have booths for local strip clubs set up for bachelor and bachelorette parties as well as divorce attorneys show up with booths to advertise their services as well?
But how did marriage become such an industry? I think it really started to thrive, and it is hard to believe it was a quarter century ago, when the world woke up and turned on the Today show and saw a royal wedding. And I think a generation of girls growing up at that time watched it and decided that they wanted to have something similar. The end result was that many of these marriages ended up a car wreck and I don’t necessarily mean in a Mercedes underneath a tunnel in Paris. They were built on a foundation as flimsy as a deck of cards so once the “queen for a day” feeling wears off and reality sets in that the marriage was more than a photo album or a pro shot video pressed on DVD with bonus footage of her aunt and uncle drunk on the dance floor, then the length of the marriage can almost be measured finitely. There may as well be bookies present at the reception to set up wagers to see how long the marriage will last.
The average cost of a wedding across the country is around $22,000. Where I live in NY, the average wedding is about twice that and about 5 years ago I opted out of attending a wedding which cost $60,000. From what I heard it was pretty lavish (and somewhat garish occasion) with all the trappings that also included a horse drawn carriage. Not a lot of people attended the reception which didn’t break even with all the money spent on it. The event was more like a glorified prom rather than a special occasion. I recently heard from a friend who attended that wedding that the marriage was on the rocks in less than 3 years. All I kept thinking was 60 grand was flushed away and what I would have and could have done with that kind of money.
As long as there are women in their 20s who want to be queen for a day, this industry will continue to thrive as long as they have $20,000 plus of mom and dad’s money to spend. On the other hand I don’t think the industry in the abstract is vile but someone should issue a caveat to these women: The DJ or Limo driver could care less if your marriage lasts 2 years or 25 years, they just want to be paid!
My point of view often offends some women out there but I don’t care. They might call me unromantic telling me that money doesn’t buy love but when the average wedding costs $22,000, please don’t tell me I am being unromantic when I say money IS buying love! Money doesn’t buy you happiness, but it can buy you everything else. Because men out there should be aware that if they don’t want to pay the price of a divorce in this day and age, don’t get married unless there is open discussion with your fiance. If there isn’t honest discussion, then don’t spend one minute more together than needed. That way a man won’t have to worry about standing in front of his family and friends as well as a Rabbi, Priest, Minister, Justice of the Peace or Buddhist Monk and make a vow he might not necessarily believe and will compromise him financially in the future.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
““Do you know how many married†men “have affairs,†impregnate another woman and then abandon the child? Plenty. Talk about an empty argument…
Your very statement convicts you as a woman-hater.”
Will, remove your head from your rectum for a moment and try to find a clue, if you can about what constitutes a “woman-hater”.
Apparently neither you nor squiggy have the faintest idea about actual misogyny (or as intellectual powerhouses like yourself call it - “woman-hating”).
That you believe that Marc is a “woman-hater” shows that you’re damned ignorant about men, women, and the nature of relationships between them.
Criticizing women’s behavior, not to mention the state of gender apartheid that exists between the two genders has nothing to do with misogyny.
Geniuses like yourself don’t understand the actual nature of feminism, nor do you apparently understand the unequal playing field brought about by their policies.
I don’t mind that you’re damnably ignorant, old-fashioned, and out-of-touch on topics related to gender apartheid.
I simply wouldn’t be so proud of that ignorance in your case.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
“Any man who can make a blanket statement and I quote you, “Women are NOT to be trusted,†is a woman hater.”
Written like a true feminazi disciple, Will Malven.
Here’s a clue, old-timer. Given the current inequalities of civil, social, and reproductive rights between men and women in America, those men who trust women risk being known as “suckers”.
Now you might enjoy being a “sucker”.
Many other men do not. That doesn’t make them “women-haters”, Einstein….. any more than driving under the speed limit makes one a “cop-hater”.
“What the matter some girlie beat you up in the past?”
What’s the matter with you, Will - spending too much time on your knees in front of men’s open trouser zippers?…….;-)
See how that works, my dimwitted Houstonian?
Now I don’t mind that you’re a ball-less moron - fact is, it makes critters like your easier to tease for your shortcomings.
The number of men who have had bad experiences with women is roughly the number of men who have dated them.
And if you spent a little less time getting your tonsils bruised by men in Houston, even “geniuses” like yourself might understand those little points.
“Your apparent goal is to gain approval for a contemptable and irresponsible lifestyle.”
Sort of how your apparent goal is to keep men’s social, civil, and reproductive rights inferior to women’s?
Women have been permitted to live “contemptible and irresponsible” lifestyles for decades now, no thanks to pussies like you.
Try to grow a set of testicles, unless you keep them in your mommy’s purse, fer cryin’ out loud.
“Chivalry (fr. chevalier-knight) is not a creation of the women, it was an idea conceived of by Elizabethan men who believed in treating women with respect and dignity rather than as chattel.”
Whatever chivalry WAS, now it’s a key weakness in pussified men like yourself, who cannot stand up for yourselves.
Chivalry is EXPLOITED by women today, since they are no longer bound by the female attitudes and behaviors that complimented chivalry in the past.
Men like Marc Rudov and Tom Leykis have helped millions of men to AVOID falling into the chivalry trap, and for that even dimbulbs like yourself ought to be grateful.
“Chivalry is dead only if men become what the feminist accuse us of being.”
Actually, chivalry is already mostly dead, except for “geniuses” like yourself who would have men continue to be fourth-class citizens in their own nations.
By the way, which moron told you that feminists only accuse men of ACTUAL shortcomings……….
…….. and why are you stupid enough to believe her?
Feminism has a long and sordid history of lying, since you were apparently asleep behind the door when IQ’s were being handed out.
There’s little sense in making men hostage to THEIR accusations under any circumstance.
“Your whole patois is an ode to selfishness and self-centeredness.”
Funny that you mention those qualities, since they pretty much characterize those qualities most prevalent among America’s women…. in case you’ve had your head up your ass.
“A man can be a man without denigrating women, and a man can be respectful of women without being cowed by them. With freedom comes responsibility.
Good luck with it.”
As if anyone with more than three working grey cells and a wish for equal rights in his own nation would want a moron like you to tell him how to behave like a man.
I don’t mind that you’re a sucker. In fact, I would laugh every time some woman used her superior social, civil, and reproductive rights at your cost, since you apparently like beingh a sucker.
Men don’t have to be “cowed” to demand equal rights, redneck. In fact apparently it’s critters like yourself who are “cowed”, since you accept inferior rights willingly.
Happily, other men are starting to demand equal rights with women.
And that’s no thanks to pussified she-males like yourself.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Bravo, KateM - you not only can see Marc’s points clearly enough, you apparently a better “man” than Will Malven.;-)
No offense intended!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
“Can we get back to the notion that once a child is brought into being, his parents should have no “rights†to kill or abandon him?”
Actually that’s doubtful, unless you can convince those individuals dictating women’s policy that a loss of rights is what women are asking for.
And I see zero sign of that happening.
With the world population above 6 billion and climbing, I’m not particularly concerned about too few births, particularly births of unwanted children.
“Why do I keep hearing a chorus of men wishing they had the equal right (with women) to do just that?”
Because quite a few men don’t want to suffer the financial, emotional, and other consequences of children they don’t want, while continuing to enjoy sexual intercourse…… which women can attain, due to their superior civil, social, and reproductive rights.
As such, you might enjoy being a fourth-class citizen in your own country - that’s YOUR proble. Most men would appreciate parity between the two sexes.
“We are talking about lives here  the lives of children.”
Yes, we are…. and what kind of selfish bastard wants children who are raised as unwanted children? Who’s caring about THEM?
September 18th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
How like you fourthwire to stoop to personal insults. You never have been intelligent enough to argue your causes logically.
YOur arguments amount to “Just because I’m a woman hater doesn’t mean that I hate women.”
Just because you and your butt-buddies can’t differentiate between respect and subserviance isn’t my problem.
It all still amounts to being irresponsible. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the fire.
Hey fourthwire, I hear they make pretty life-like latex dolls. Just think, you can have all the sex you want and you don’t have to worry about impregnating them. Not only that they won’t talk back to you and they have no legal standing so they won’t sue you.
Otherwise try being a man and taking responsibility for your actions rather than committing infanticide.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Guys,
Let’s not forget the issue I wrote about by allowing this debate to devolve into personal attacks. In essence, women have more rights than men, and the politicians made it that way — while the men did nothing. Why? Too much “male guilt.”
The time is now to wrest back control to a situation of equality between the genders. We are light-years away from that. If you fight each other, instead of the politicians, all is for naught.
If unwed pregnant women don’t choose abortion, they choose to raise children in fatherless homes. We have an entire generation of dysfunctional kids because of that — a situation that worsens.
Abortion is not going away. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. I heard on Leykis today a pregnant unwed woman who plans to have her baby JUST TO SPITE THE FATHER. That’s wonderful. Her child will appreciate that.
Mr. Malven doesn’t live in the real world. So be it. He can live his life as he chooses. But, he cannot tell the rest of us how to live ours.
Mr. Malven doesn’t know that half my book readers are women. They tell me how much I’ve changed their lives. I am not a woman-hater. But, I sure as hell do not take their nonsense.
I’d love to hear from more women like KateM who actually understand and empathise with the man’s plight.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Say what you will Marc,
It still amounts to irresponsibility. It’s your decision, but at least be man enough to admit that’s your aim. Stop trying to hide behind the discriminatory court system.
Work to change the laws, I encourage it. But if you are expecting “fairness” in life, then you are in for a long hard road.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Knock it off, Malven. It’s not irresponsibility if a woman lies to a man — which the government encourages her to do and rewards her for doing so.
Are you some kind of vaginized mama’s boy?
September 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Just not man enough to admit it are you Marc? Where ever you put your d**k, you are responsible for the outcome (no pun intended).
You’re not a latent homo-sexual are you? You know Don Juanism is a symptom.
Curious that you keep using the female body parts to describe people who disagree with you. Kind of like saying “bitch!”
Go forth be fruitful and multiply yourself…you’re not even entertaining competition.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Malven, you’ve answered my question. Enough said.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
“How like you fourthwire to stoop to personal insults.”
If you’re trying to pretend any great moral outrage, then consider that you’re not above doing a bit of insulting yourself.
Or aren’t you bright enough to notice those little details, hypocrite?…;-)
“YOur arguments amount to “Just because I’m a woman hater doesn’t mean that I hate women.—
LOL….. take an English class, Mongo. Or have your mommy read my posts aloud and explain what I actually mean, since you teeny-tiny little brain apparently isn’t up to the task……
Tell you what: since you’re not exactly the brightest bulb, have any HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE help you out with your reading comprehension difficulties.
“Just because you and your butt-buddies can’t differentiate between respect and subserviance isn’t my problem.”
And just because you have a chronic case of bruised tonsils and enjoy life as a fourth-class citizen in your own nation isn’t my problem either, Mongo.
“It all still amounts to being irresponsible. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the fire.”
Focus, if you can, simpleton.
Being “irresponsible” apparently doesn’t matter, provided that one is born with a vagina.
Have your mommy explain that to you, once you get off your knees and wipe your snout.
What dimwits like yourself apparently don’t WANT to accept is that growing numbers of men simply don’t accept the status quo, that men are forced to accept greater levels of responsibility than women are, but correspondingly fewer rights and privileges.
“Hey fourthwire, I hear they make pretty life-like latex dolls.”
Hey Will….. I hear that your boyfriends voted you “Most Likely To Swallow”…;-)
“Just think, you can have all the sex you want and you don’t have to worry about impregnating them.”
LOL…… isn’t that precisely how your boyfriends feel about you?….;-)
“Otherwise try being a man and taking responsibility for your actions rather than committing infanticide.”
I would suggest the same for you…. except that you couldn’t be a man with your testicles in mommy’s purse, could you?…..
…….not to mention that most female rabbits likely have a bigger set than a she-male like you would have, anyway.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
“Just not man enough to admit it are you Marc? Where ever you put your d**k, you are responsible for the outcome (no pun intended).”
Written like a true feminazi sychophant. Hey, maybe one of THEM will lend you her testicles, Will!
More seriously, when dimwits like yourself yammer and bleat about “taking responsibility”, you’re about four decades too late.
Women are not required to “take responsibility” for their actions, and simian geniuses like yourself certainly are in no position to suggest that they do.
Worse yet, women now have incentives to trick, trap, defraud, and take money from men legally through vaginamony and child support laws.
That’s one of the reasons that marriage is becoming less popular, my dimwitted knob-gobbler.
And will continue to become LESS AND LESS popular, as growing numbers of men try to evade the legally-supported traps and fraud possibilities.
Just ask one of your boyfriends, or your mommy about it.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
“You’re not a latent homo-sexual are you?”
LOL…. coming from a you, Malven, that’s rather amusing to read. Do you spit or swallow?….;-)
“You know Don Juanism is a symptom.”
Get your G.E.D. first, Mongo, before you try dispensing your psychiatric “advice”……;-)
And perhaps you better get the knees on your trousers patched up, since you likely wore them out doing what you likely do best……;-)
“Curious that you keep using the female body parts to describe people who disagree with you.”
Actually Marc was a bit more polite, not to mention considerably more intellligent than a knuckle-dragging imbecile like you could seem to manage.
But hey, a knob-gobbler extraordinaire like you might not notice those little details…..;-)
“Kind of like saying “bitch!—
Malven, you’re a pretty good example of a neutered bitch, IMO.
I’m just not certain if you ACTUALLY NEED to cram tampons up inside you……..;-)
Hey, perhaps those make you feel sexier around your boys?
September 18th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Marc is right on.
Women are not to be trusted under the current laws and social conditions. Government encourages and rewards bastardy. Period.
And that it why it is running at 37% of all US births - an all time high.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Marc, you wrote:
“It’s not irresponsibility if a woman lies to a man — which the government encourages her to do and rewards her for doing so.”
I think you were being sarcastic, and I get that women are being irresponsible when they use their biology and the family laws to rob men (fathers, no less) out of their livelihoods (and worse, alienate men from their children). Yes, that is irresponsible. I get it. We all get it on this site. There is agreement.
But holding ourselves (as men) to higher standards (which we hope to have reflected in the law some day) is not a sign of weakness. To me it underscores the justness of our cause. There is a throng of neutral voters out there, open to persuasive and positive arguments given by honorable and devoted people. Over time, we win such voters over — and eventually take over the state legislatures, then national government as state lawmakers graduate into higher office. A positive message is powerful. But it seems like such a negative message to me when we try to say, “She’s behaving like a dishonest, money-grubbing, poor-excuse-for-a-mom slut, and she benefits financially from that too. Now why can’t I ‘enjoy’ the same rights and freedoms?” Talk about a losing argument. You talk about how disunity like we’ve experienced here will set our political goals back even further than they are now. But a losing argument that is not positive in nature — not persuasive — will also be just as ineffective.
“Roe vs. Wade for Men” seeks to achieve its aims by judicial fiat, rather than through the democratic process. Why pour your energy into persuading the masses when all you need to do is persuade an appelate court? The trouble with this line of thinking is that it fails to build a critical mass of public support behind what is perceived as a just cause — because men opting out of parenthood is seen as anything BUT just. Just visualize the kids. Picture your own kids, left behind in such a “Roe v. Wade for Men” fantasy world. What is their world going to be like?
You can make machiavelian predictions about the broader sociological impact of Roe v. Wade for Men, saying it will reduce unintended births and possibly abortions. But you are no political scientist, nor are you a fortune teller. And in any case, there will always be those fathers who utilize their right to abandon their kids under such a law, even if abortion and maternity fraud start to diminish — and they will feel justified in doing so because the law supports them. It remains immoral, in any scenario (as I see it), to abandon your own offspring simply because you can legally.
A positive, winning message is that which paints fathers and men as honorable and courageous. Feminists should be the ones to look vain and selfish, not us. Why are they a model to emulate? We should be pushing for a higher ideal, not just on a moral level but also as a successful political strategy.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 19th, 2006 at 8:53 am
John Dias,
I wholeheartedly disagree that men should hold themselves to a “higher” standard — that’s chivalry again. There is absolutely no reason that women deserve one iota of anything more than men do. Please get over this concept!
Moreover, there is overwhelming proof that, when men extend women any privileges, the women take advantage of it and men end up the BIG losers. Deferential treatment is what makes women into the takers that they are!
Finally, Roe v. Wade for Men (TM) is a judicial fix to right the unconstitutional, anti-male bias of Roe v. Wade – the result of the “male guilt” I wrote about in my article above. No election will EVER solidify or rescind Roe v. Wade, which exists by judicial fiat. That said, the only way to make it fair to men is through another judicial fiat.
There are many men who have been raised to worship women and can’t see the dysfunction in that — for them and for the women. These men, who are imbued with male guilt, continually sell out the rest of us. These are men whom NOW covets and hot babes don’t. To them, I say: Grow some balls and treat women like peers. Period.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Why is adoption not enthusiastically promoted as an option for women who don’t have a willing and wanting partner for the offspring she alone is deciding to bear? Why is it that single motherhood is a more welcome and accepted option than adoption? What is up with that!!!! Don’t children deserve two parents who want to love and raise them? If two people who had no intention of having a family find that she is pregnant shouldn’t it be both people’s right to choose whether or not they are ready to take on the responsibility of parenting? There are huge numbers of people who are ready and able who would love to adopt a child.
If the man does not want to be a father and the women still insists on having and keeping the baby she alone should accept the responsibility she has chosen.
Men are forced to pay support for children they don’t want because ‘we the people’ don’t want to. Don’t get me started on how religion plays into this. Let’s remember our churches and states are supposed to be separate!!! Men deserve the same rights as women, to be able to legally separate from offspring they are unwilling or unable to care for before the child is born or the same right women have after a child is born, to be able a give the baby up for adoption, to the mother if her choice is to take on that responsibility.
Additionally, a woman should be required by law to inform the prospective father(s) during the first trimester so his rights can be in play and protected, (even if she plans to terminate the pregnancy because he might want to take sole custody of the prospective child). This would also prevent the ridiculousness of a woman being able to show up years after the fact with child in arm expecting support.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:49 am
All Marc is saying is that men out there of all ages have to protect themselves from a situation that could possibly hurt them financially. Whether it is in a relationship or in a one night stand, it is about being aware to be responsible for our actions. Above all else, it comes down to money in the end. And since most relationships in this day and age are based on a weak foundation, we have to find ways to strengthen if it is desired or discontinue it and learn not to feel disappointed when severing ties. Life is complicated in the 21st century and the more information out there like with Roe Vs. Wade for Men can only keep men well informed whether men agree with it or not.
I have a friend at work who a couple years ago had to get married to his live in girlfriend of 3 years after she had become pregnant. He was 42 at the time and his girlfriend was in her mid to late 30s. She also has 2 children from a previous marriage and they all lived together in his house. He had kept his wedding date and pregnancy under wraps at work but all during the time just before every one found out, he always told people how much he hated kids and how he didn’t want them. But what confused me is why would he start a relationship with a single mom and have her and her two kids move into his house? People at work talked about his demeanor after they found out that he had married the weekend before and that the baby was due in a week’s time and noticed he was pretty angry. I said well guilt can be mutually exclusive to anger in this context when there had been a lack of trust all along. If he liked the living arrangement in spite of questions of trust, well then he should have protected himself by either getting a vasectomy or using a condom. Now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions all due to guilt and his new wife gains what she most likely wanted as a result of his guilt.
One time at a bar I heard someone say, “No one is a total waste, they can always serve as a bad example,” and I think a lot is to be learned from my co-worker’s example. You can learn by experience or by example of any kind and men have to take responsibility for what they do in this world because unfortunately and thanks to Feminism, the deck is stacked against men. Marc’s writings as basic as should a woman buy a man dinner is brilliant because it is his “broken window theory” into abortion chess and why relationships are in peril in the 21st century.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Marc:
When a child exists, the focus becomes the child. A man who is a biological father to that child should also be a genuine father to that child. It’s about the child — no one ever talks about extending chivalry to a child. Chivalry is a concept applied by men to women. You’re still looking at this from a man vs. woman angle, yet when a new human being is brought into the world in part by the actions of the father, it is not chivalrous to expect that father to behave like a dad.
What we should be pushing for is greater rights for fathers to have access to their sons and daughters, to be in their lives, to be a positive influence. It should be harder, not easier, for fathers to abandon the benefits and responsibilities of fatherhood — just like it should be harder for women to do the same thing. Women shouldn’t have the right to abort, in my opinion. But even if that doesn’t change legally, women shouldn’t have the right to walk away from their kids after the kids are born — just like a man shouldn’t. Parenthood should be expected of parents, not because of the advantages or disadvantages this would incur in the gender wars. Parenthood should be expected of parents because they — by their actions — created a child. Women should not have any right to abandon a child after birth, just like men shouldn’t. Sounds like equality to me.
And KateM, you shouldn’t assume that women who choose to give birth to their kids have no interest in being mothers. Many single moms are good mothers in some sense, except they fail to contribute equally to the parenting responsibilities (such as putting food on the table and a roof over their heads); she feels entitled to that from the father, and that attitude of entitlement has to stop. But imagine what you’re implying: a mother has a baby, and then the state confiscates the baby and puts the baby into the adoption system, never to be seen again by either parent, on the precept that adoptive parents would be better than biological parents. Wouldn’t it be better if the law expected both biological parents to support their kids equally? Shouldn’t that be what the debate is about, rather than giving either parent the “right” (read: excuse) to abandon the child they created together?
This is NOT about gender wars! Change the laws (through legislation OR litigation) so that both parents are required to be equally responsible for a child they created. If either parent truly wanted to avoid the possibility of becoming a parent, there is a process called a vasectomy, or a phenomenon called abstinence, or a product called a condom… Men do have reproductive choices, Marc!
John Dias
September 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am
As the feminist men in this thread now can see, not all women are man-hating ballbusters. As I said in my article, NOW does not speak for all women.
KateM exemplifies the woman who likes and respects men, understands that men are at a disadvantage in this society, and wishes to make the playing field even. I can’t repeat enough that she is the kind of woman men should have in their lives. Learn how to find women like her in The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women.
Reject the manhaters, for they will destroy you.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Marc:
You know all about my hatred for feminism. You’ve been to my site…
http://www.dontmakehermad.com
…and you know exactly how much damage their tactics have caused. You know it in your own life. And you knew that when you referred to people who agree with my view (and possibly you were directly referring to me), you were calling them (what most men on this site would consider) an epithet.
A fathers rights activist (FRA) is a men’s rights activist (MRA) by definition. But not all MRAs are FRAs — like you. I will now practice chivalry and hold myself to a higher standard than you, by refraining from calling you a name.
We should be sticking together for SOME common goals, not calling names (”feminist” being the worst name you could call, worse even than the words in fourthwire’s lexicon).
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
John,
A father is a man, first and foremost. If he doesn’t have basic rights as a man — as he does NOT have them in this country — he will never have them as a father.
Clearly, fathers do not have the same rights as mothers, because men do NOT have the same rights as women. This is so obvious a concept, I cannot believe every guy doesn’t grasp it.
Fight for MEN’s rights first, and the fathers among us will, too, get their rights. ANY deferential treatment towards women defeats men’s/fathers’ rights.
If you scroll backwards, you will see plenty of comments excusing miscreant-female behavior and the government authorities and laws that permit it. I stand by my statements.
I reject anyone or anything that gives women the upper hand in any matter whatsoever. I reject women who mistreat men as well as men who mistreat women. I cannot be any clearer.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Marc:
You wrote:
“This is so obvious a concept, I cannot believe every guy doesn’t grasp it.”
You ARE very clear. You’re getting through, and you use clear language to communicate. The problem isn’t that people don’t understand you; it’s just that they disagree on certain aspects of your views, as elucidated in your column above (and particularly as relates to fatherhood).
If a woman goes to the market and steals an apple, and this crime is ignored due to chivalry, your solution is to legalize stealing of apples for both men and women. Why not hold both women and men to the same standard, and expect them both to obey the law? And if, as pertains to parenthood, mothers are perverting it by shutting men out of their kids’ lives and turning men into virtual ATM machines, then THAT is what must change (rather than legalizing the right of fathers to abandon their offspring, the proverbial “stolen apple” crime in this example.
This, to me, is the concept that is so obvious, and I too cannot believe every guy doesn’t grasp it.
John Dias
September 19th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
John,
I am disappointed and chagrined to discover that you don’t understand me or my writings at all.
For you to attribute the hypothetical “If a woman goes to the market and steals an apple, and this crime is ignored due to chivalry, your solution is to legalize stealing of apples for both men and women” to MY way of thinking, you confirm not only your lack of comprehension of my position but also why men are getting nowhere in their quest for equality.
I feel sorry for the men’s movement. G-d help us all.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Marc:
Chapter 5 of your book says that you are a man of metaphors. If you object to the one that I used, why? And what makes it a poor representation of your views?
Really, you’re getting a bit dramatic when you say, “I feel sorry for the men’s movement. G-d help us all.”
By the way, who is “G-d?”
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 19th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
The “women good-men bad†mentality has been around for a very long time. Prior to modern feminism the male model in all western societies was as the Traditional Chivalrist. Men were providers and protectors of women. Hitler believed that women working in factories would cause them depression and other mental diseases as they were the fairer sex in need of protection. He even gave a speech stating that the world of men and women should be separate:
Adolf Hitler, speech to the NSDAP Women’s Organization (September, 1934)
“The slogan “emancipation of women” was invented by Jewish intellectuals. If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s in a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? The great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. We do not consider it correct for the women to interfere in the world of the man. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct.”
In America in the 1800s, the KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in lifeâ€Â, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhoodâ€Â. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.
The Women’s KKK (WKKK) became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks†through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squadsâ€Â, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping†boycotts, and pass political information around.
The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the worldâ€Â, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.
(to read more go to:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/#comments)
In otherwords, part of being a Traditional Chivalrist was in putting women on a pedestal.
And being on a pedestal was the female role.
The “women good-men bad” mentality follows directly from men having one role as a Traditional Chivalrist and women having one role on the pedestal.
This gave women great power and influence over the men and society at large-just as women do today. (But at least men had a role).
Today, religious leaders still put women on pedestals and reserve their chastisng for the men.
I’ve just listed a few examples but I think it is intuitive to men that in the past, there was one role, one model of behavior, for men, and one role, one model of behavior, for women. This was around for many many centuries.
Feminism completely upended this model. Both for women and especially for men. For women, it expanded their power. For men, it destroyed their role in society and in the family. The impact has been cataclysmic and destructive.
Once women were given special political rights and influence, it was a simple matter of using this ingrained “men bad-women good” mentality to implement a re-engineered society favoring women and displacing men.The chivalrous traditionalist men of the past, and of today, went along with this and helped plant the seeds of male oppression we see today in the western world.
The “women good-men bad” mentality is constantly paraded to gain women more and more freebies, privileges, and control, including ownership of the family, favortism on the job regarding hiring & promoting, lighter sentences for the same crime, and so on. It is a mentality common to all women and not just the feminists. It has been around for centuries.
It is why women are always victims, and why the the “victim strategy†is commonly the tactic of choice to get women whatever they want. This tactic is common because it works so reliably on men-even when used at the detriment of men.
Marc Rudov’s column is about the remnants of upended and outdated models for the roles of men and women, and how modern feminism caused this fissure, which resulted in women winning all the prizes, and men being pushed out of society and their own families. We are living in a time-lag where old models do not work, and where women have been the only ones building a new model after the fissure. Obviously they have been building a model that works best for them (or at least they believe works best for them).
It is time to see the big picture and not allow yourselves to get blinded by other issues.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Mr. Dias, I do not think I assumed anything in my #51 com