Joanna Schroeder wonders if The Onion is doing damage to both men and women when joking about female voters having silly crushes on Republican Candidates.
There’s a stereotype out there about humorless Feminists…
That we all stand there, super-scary stone-faced and angry while men make jokes, missing the punchline because we’re so busy looking for a way to tear apart the deep systems at work within the joke that oppress women.
Of course that’s not true! I am a living example of a funny feminist. In fact, I make my male blogging partner, Jamie Reidy, tell me I’m funny every day. We just don’t think sexist jokes are funny.
There was a function to our stone-faced-feminism. Not long ago that you could tell any joke you wanted in a workplace, even ones that made people feel threatened and uncomfortable, and that created threatening environments for both men and women. It’s good for society that we keep checks on one another, and say, “listen sexist/racist/ageist/ableist/whateverist jokes aren’t cool here.”
The same protections and social taboos should apply to jokes that make men look terrible, too. I don’t like jokes about how stupid men are, how they’re all oafs and lazy sex-mongering beasts. It’s not funny to me, the same way the TV show Two and a Half Men isn’t funny (as I wrote here). Some shit, while humorous on the surface, is troubling deep down.
♦◊♦
But The Onion is funny. Is there anyone who doesn’t agree? The satirical newspaper has a way of making fun of everyone equally and that’s why it works so well.
But, despite the laugher of all my feminist friends, one story rubbed me the wrong way. Last week’s article Women Voters Can’t Help Fawning Over Sexist GOP jokingly compares female conservative voters with the sorts of girls who go crazy over “bad boys”. Here’s an excerpt:
“They openly insult me, undermine my intelligence, and act as if I lack the basic responsibility to take care of myself, but every time I hear them talking about why I shouldn’t be able to choose what I do with my own body, I get a little turned on,” registered voter Jennifer Wilson said. ”My friends keep telling me I’ll get burned like I always do when I elect guys who think their authority extends to my uterus, but there’s just something unbelievably sexy about politicians who see something they want and then go out and take it.”
Sure, I get the humor. It’s funny because apparently it makes no sense that women would support the GOP, as apparently all Republicans are sexist bastards. Rush Limbaugh certainly didn’t help that cause when he called Sandra Fluke a prostitute for wanting her birth control to be covered by her student health plan.
But I think this sort of joke perpetuates a couple of stereotypes that are as bad for men as they are for women. First, that Conservative men don’t care about women’s rights. I know how black and white it seems from the perspective of a Liberal woman. Like if he doesn’t support universal access to birth control, or if he doesn’t support abortion rights, he must want to control women. And it may very well be true for some of these candidates and voters.
But there’s a problem in the absolutes. For many people, abortion isn’t an issue of a woman’s body. It’s an issue of killing a baby. You can argue that a 8 week-term fetus isn’t a baby—and I cannot disagree with you there—but that isn’t the point here. The point is, for the people who believe there is a soul in that fetus, you aren’t going to convince them that the right to terminate that pregnancy, and therefore that human’s life, is a women’s issue. They think of it as a human rights issue.
When my late mother-in-law worked in Neo-Natal as a surgical nurse more than thirty years ago, there was a practice where babies they didn’t expect to survive were put aside, in little cribs, and allowed to cry without being held or comforted, and weren’t fed. They wasted away and died alone. She would come home from work sobbing, thinking of those babies just suffering alone.
None of us could get behind this practice now, because to us these are humans. To pro-life voters it’s exactly the same thing. Again, I’m not saying I think a pre-term fetus is the same as a baby in the Neo-Natal department… I just want us to try to deepen the issue and not make this into a strictly pro-woman vs anti-woman debate.
Republican women aren’t all dumb. They’re not all under a spell. They believe they are doing what is morally right, and they’re just as likely to be making that decision based upon their intelligent reasoning as someone who decides to be pro-choice.
♦◊♦
Similarly, the debate about birth control is framed as a pro-woman or anti-woman binary. Some of the Republican men who are against funding birth control are doing this based upon what they believe is a fiscal responsibility to minimize costs to the government. And I agree that if Viagra is covered under insurance, birth control sure as hell should be too. But for those who don’t want any of those drugs covered, it isn’t fair to say that they are anti-woman simply because of this one stance.
Some Republicans, like Rick Santorum, are trying to impart morality upon people. But for others there is a deeper issue here. And simply because they’re men doesn’t mean they’re doing it to oppress us women. In fact, our own conservative-leaning Lauren Hale explained her feelings on the subject here on the Good Feed Blog just last week.
The second stereotype The Onion article perpetuates is that women are, truly, all just silly little girls unless they’ve jumped on board with the prototypical Women’s Movement. I’m bothered that they’ve minimized the choices of women who follow the GOP to just silly little school-girl crushes. I know it’s partly funny because these aren’t super-sexy bad boys at all, but pasty straight-and-narrow be-suited nerds. But Mitt Romney’s pretty handsome… And Even Newt Gingrich managed to get four women to marry him! So it’s not that far off.
But isn’t relegating women’s choices as “silly” or “childish”, even if we disagree with them, what we’re fighting against, as feminists and other gender-equity folks?
♦◊♦
It all leads me back to one of the biggest problems we have in partisan politics in the US: We feel completely entitled to disrespect and insult people who feel differently from us. It happens in gender and sex politics, as we’ve seen here in the comments section. And it happens in the larger political arena as well.
My hope, my dream, is that we can stop blaming other people’s differences upon their stupidity, and try to see what they’re saying, try to understand why they feel that way. You don’t have to agree in order to respect someone, and you shouldn’t expect them to change. You don’t have to “meet in the middle” with them to have compassion for their views and to debate them with intelligence. Just because you disagree, doesn’t mean you aren’t thinking. It doesn’t mean you don’t have agency.
What do you think? Is it fair to assume women who vote Republican don’t care about women’s reproductive rights? Is it fair to assume that men who vote Republican are trying to control women?
And what role does humor play in reflecting what we truly believe, deep down, in this election year?
Photo of me reading The Onion (just kidding!) courtesy of teflon
About Joanna Schroeder
I think the satire in question is right on.
Do you really think that the Republican women are really just under some spell, and don’t mind having their rights removed?
Yes. They must not mind having their rights removed, or they would not find justifications for voting for such anti-woman, anti-family planning, pro-patriarchy candidates. I’m surprised The Onion didn’t slip an Ayn Rand reference into that satire.
Hay..You leave my metaphysical spiritual leader & part time sex symbol out of this. Ayn Rand was the patron saint of small Government.
Their rights removed?
PS Let me be clear: I’m not voting Republican now or in the foreseeable future. Nor pro-life.
Just to be clear
They believe they are doing what is morally right, and they’re just as likely to be making that decision based upon their intelligent reasoning as someone who decides to be pro-choice.
Here’s my problem with this: if you’re basing your voting decision on a belief in souls, you’re not doing “intelligent reasoning.” You’re acting on an irrational belief. How intelligent is it to make decisions based on beliefs that have been found unprovable?
I’m not sure if you are trying to imply those who vote republican do so for religious reasons. Republican’s also hold very strong “smaller government” and fiscal responsibility stances many people (even the non-religious) can get behind. Likewise, the left has their fair share of unprovable or even disproven dogma.
Oh, no; if they’re voting Republican because they’ve arrived at a reasoned decision based on the sciences of economics, or a set of values that can at least be philosophically argued, then I’m down with that. And it’s within people’s rights to base their decisions on whatever woo they want. I just don’t think it’s a sound basis of government. I worry that my fellow Americans are too ignorant and superstitious to be allowed to control the fate of the nation. Not that I think we should give it to the corporations, instead. Their rationality is too cold. Something between believing in ghosts and believing in money would suit me.
The right does not have a monopoly in illogic and unreason.
The Democrats (left) use JUST as irrational, arbitrary, unprovable, and caprcious illogic and unreason based on personal philosophy to justify their equally wacko policies. The right wing wackos and left wing wackos have ping ponged the country back and forth for years into its continuously downward spiral. It’s comically sad to hear each side blaming the other when they are equally guilty, as they have equally contributed to the sad and worsening state of the countrry.
It didn’t used to be a ping pong game. The whole of American politics has moved markedly to the right, and has also become more divided than ever. There used to be a significant overlap in the values of, and cooperation among, centrists. Now it’s a tug to the death.
You are right in that there is more division than ever before. However, the facts don’t support your contention that “The WHOLE of American politics has moved markedly to the right. . . ” with a left controlled President and a left controlled House. Both sides are equally complicit in the mess that exists and continues to worsen.
“They believe they are doing what is morally right, and they’re just as likely to be making that decision based upon their intelligent reasoning as someone who decides to be pro-choice.”
Not only do they believe they’re doing what’s morally right, they also are willing to inconvenience themselves to do it (unwanted pregnancy.)
Personally I’m pro-choice, but I respect the pro-life position for those who hold it without hypocrisy(‘but my daughter’s unplanned unwed pregnancy is different!’)
I am pro-equality. When men have choice, I’ll be pro female choice. Until then, I am a party pooper.
Here’s where I end up having really different opinions than you, Anthony. I am also pro-equality…but like…okay for me…with like same-sex marriage…I’m not against straight people being able to get married just because lgb people can’t get married.
Like…the sort of statement where “once men are equal, I’ll worry about women,” is kind of the exact reverse of what a lot of the more destructive feminists said. – Once women are equal, we can worry about the problems that men face. – And that’s a problematic way of looking at things. It’s not productive; it just further entrenches both sides and hampers any real dialogue or progress.
There is a political party in Queensland, Australia called The Australian Party. Their policies weren’t too bad and I was considering voting for them until they posted an advert that was quite homophobic. That cost them a lot of votes. I don’t want to vote for anyone that doesn’t support gay marriage, to me equality means something and I can’t see any reason why gay’s can’t marry.
Gottttaa loveeee politicsssss /sarcasm
Heather, I know it is problamatic. Thats why I call myself the “party pooper”. But what is the alternative? I believe these things;
1a) The world of yesterday denied equal OPPORTUNITY to women.
1b) The world of yesterday denied equal PROTECTION to men.
2a) Today, women have parity in opportunity, and are approaching parity in outcome.
2b) Today, men are farther than they have ever been from equal protection.
3a) No modern politician has ever breathed the words “equal protection for men (or boys)”. Actually, it has happend twice. In human history. Twice.
3b) No modern politician can make one campaign speech without pleging opportunity, protection, and special consideration for women (of course it is often a false promise).
Men have to be party poopers. And we are ready and willing to spoil everything, absolutetly everything. We are ready and willing to walk away from every responsibility and duty, to allow entropy and time and bad people to slowly reduce this world to a primitive smoking crater of misery, if that is what it takes for our voices to be HEARD.
Alright explain to me how this is a better strategy than the stereotypical feminist strategy of – women first, men later?
thats easy, everybody gets screwed instead of just half the population.
so, equality
I’m somewhere between you and HeatherN. Under normal circumstances, I am pro-choice (though I’d like to see restrictions, such as once the foetus could theoretically sustain itself, abortion is no longer allowed. no using abortion like birth control, every few months off to the clinic (not that I think this is common to any degree)), but when I see a feminist claiming her “rights” are being taken away, I will dig in and argue from a very pro-life (resembling) stance, making use of every argument I have ever had thrown at me regarding opposition to male reproductive rights and equal parenting.
So you dig your heels and argue against your own beliEfs just to spite feminists? What actual good does that do? That would be like me fighting against needed support for men and boys just because I find some folks in mra irritate me. The boys are still left needing support and I’d rather Support the actual issue rather than act counter dependent and get nothing done ( but increasing animosity).
“argue against your own beliEfs”
I said a very pro-life (resembling) stance. I made certain to include that resembling for a reason. I come at it in a “why should you have this right” point of view, making use of all the arguments against male reproduction often levied against me. I never take the “a fetus is alive” position (though I will take the “some people feel the fetus is alive” one). So while I may be argue against a position I accept, I do not contradict my beliefs in doing so, but in fact, support them (by holding to an expectation of equal treatment (or as equal as we can get, given biology)).
“just to spite feminists”
I won’t deny, I enjoy watching hypocrites whinge under their own double standards, but I do it for more than just spite. I do it to educate. First off, if someone can’t provide a strong defense for their position, they don’t deserve to get their way over someone else who can provide a strong defense for an alternative. Nobody should be entitled to preferential treatment. So taking up a devils advocate position isn’t a spiteful one by default (spite can be the trigger for taking it up, or just one of several).
Additionally, it demonstrates the double standards placed on men, and shows them their own hypocrisy (when they refuse to acknowledge that double standard) in how they define gender equality. It forces them to see how unfair their own arguments against us are, ether pushing them into the “I don’t care, I guess I am a man-hater” camp, or forcing them to reconsider their stance on male reproductive rights (unfortunately, I see far more of the former than the latter, but once they go too far radical, it’s easier to point them out as bigots)
“That would be like me fighting against needed support for men and boys just because I find some folks in mra irritate me.”
Not really. I’m not fighting against abortion “because feminists irritate me”, I’m challenging their right’s to abortion, because they place a double standard on men that is applicable to the issue of abortion. I may enjoy it because feminists irritate me, but that’s entirely different.
“I’d rather Support the actual issue rather than act counter dependent and get nothing done”
By taking the “why do you deserve it” angle, rather than a “you don’t deserve it” one, I leave the discussion open to their accepting men are treated unfairly too, and reproductive rights should be granted to both genders. I even encourage that process. Unfortunately, it’s rare for anyone to take it up.
Alrighty, I think the problem that Julie is having here is a lot like what I was saying to Anthony, in that, answering a negative with a negative doesn’t get us anywhere. I suppose my question would be, in playing devil’s advocate do you acknowledge that is what you are doing when you do it? It’s one thing to say – hang on now, think about this this way for a moment – and another to argue against your actual opinion (or make arguments that resemble the opposition to your actual opinion).
It’d be like…I dunno…me actually making the argument that we shouldn’t let Christians get married (because after all being a Christian is a choice)…just to try to prove the point that in the U.S., arguing that being lgbt is a choice isn’t a good enough reason to make marriage illegal. While I might post a few humorous memes on my facebook page to that effect, or bring up the hypocrisy in that position, I don’t actually dig in and make the argument that Christians should be allowed to be married. (yeah, that’s right, I’m drawing parallels again. lol)
Specifically with regards to abortion…well the problem is that at the end of the day one of the two people involved (man or woman) is going to have to be given the authority to make the final decision. Ideally everyone would have spoken about the issue before even having sex, and after having sex everyone would sit down again and come to a consensus. Realistically, though, someone has to have the final say…and so because I believe in bodily autonomy I believe that person should be the woman. So for my mind, using arguments surrounding reproductive rights and equal parenting to highlight how unfairly men are treated in this debate is more appropriate and effective when discussing contraception rather than abortion. Abortion is, effectively, a separate issue from contraception. They are related, but the arguments for/against are quite different from each other, particularly when discussing how biological sex factors into it.
That’s quite a lot of power women have over men, they can choose to end or continue a pregnancy which can result in an 18 year obligation.
I’ll start us a new comment thread since this one’s so long already.
Well, what’s the alternative? Should the man have the power and decide if she will carry the child or abort it? Is that ideal? Or should the couple go to the state in the first trimester each make their case for keeping/aborting and let the state decide? Is that ideal?
And she’s got an 18 year obligation too-to the child, day care, feeding, clothing, dealing and or negotiating with a person who may or may not be friendly, may or may not deal with her or the child only because of courts, worst case scenario anyway…..wow, good times!!! Sign me up for that! NOT.
As per Heather, both parties should know that pregnancy is always an outcome of penetrative intercourse. They should, at best, discuss their stances on it, use whatever protection possible to avoid the pregnancy. I get that people want to fuck and damn the consequences
GIVEITTOMENOW, but that’s how little accidents happen, and if both parties don’t communicate, well….
I fundamentally don’t have a problem at all with a man ceding parental rights/access for cessation of child support. I wish we had a more family friendly country in the US that would support kids through single payer insurance, better leave plans for birthing and job security though. Would make that above plan easier to sell in general. And of course my repetitive response of teach people how not to get pregnant, give men access to RISUG, etc, so they have more control.
I guess it’s women having power over men for 18 years, but who wants power over someone who disdains you, the child perhaps, and the entire situation. I wouldn’t. If I were single? And I accidentally got pregnant and the fellow was incredibly resistant to being a part of the child’s life financially or otherwise? There is no way in hell I’d stay connected to him. I’d have him sign off on parental rights and let him go his merry way. Who wants 18 years of arguments, courts and more?
I would want to raise that child in as peaceful an environment as possible.
I’ll reply on Heathers new thread.
“answering a negative with a negative doesn’t get us anywhere.”
But I’m not answering with a negative, I’m insisting they are able to defend their position, against the very arguments they use against men, without the use of establishing a double standard (in which, these arguments are then of use to me when discussing male reproductive rights), or acknowledge those double standards exist and are unfair.
“I suppose my question would be, in playing devil’s advocate do you acknowledge that is what you are doing when you do it?”
Not after my arguments routinly got dismissed because I was “just trying to be argumentative”.
“me actually making the argument that we shouldn’t let Christians get married ”
If you can show how their own arguments against you can be applied equally to them, by all means, I think it would very much make the point. If their arguments can’t be applied equally, then the analogy is not a correct one.
“Specifically with regards to abortion…well the problem is that at the end of the day one of the two people involved (man or woman) is going to have to be given the authority to make the final decision.”
I acknowledged that, of sorts, with my statement (read the bracketed comment):
So while I may be argue against a position I accept, I do not contradict my beliefs in doing so, but in fact, support them (by holding to an expectation of equal treatment (or as equal as we can get, given biology)).
If you are not familiar with the proposed concept for male reproductive rights (the legal opting out of parenthood), let me know and I will explain it further. It sits somewhere between abortion and adoption, but is very much relevant to the discussion of abortion.
I’m familiar with the the idea of a man being able to legally opt out of parenthood within a certain time after conception, yup.
Where you and I are disagreeing is with regards to the best way to go about arguing what are actually very similar opinions. The problem I have with the tactic you’re talking about is that it is nearly impossible to distinguish from being spiteful, or from just arguing for the purpose of arguing. Pointing out the opposition’s flaws in logic or hypocrisy usually results in the opposition getting all defensive, as opposed to actually acknowledging their faulty logic.
“Pointing out the opposition’s flaws in logic or hypocrisy usually results in the opposition getting all defensive, as opposed to actually acknowledging their faulty logic.”
Well, if you have any suggestions for getting the less egalitarian types to acknowledge the hypocrisy of their stance, and actually acknowledge their faulty logic and double standards (not to mention putting them aside), I’m happy to hear it. But telling me what “usually” doesn’t work isn’t helpful if there is no alternative that actually does work. I’ll take the occasional success over none at all any day.
@Mark: I’d say pretty much the same as with any discussion, gotta ease into it. People are much more willing to listen to you if they feel that they’re being listened to as well. A little bit of empathy goes a long way in these sorts of discussions…trying to understand why they hold such hypocritical opinions helps understand how to argue against them. Or at the very least helps you know whether you even can argue against them or whether they’re a hopeless case.
But are you challenging it person to person…like a game or are you actively working against beliefs you have just to spite people? That’s my question. If it’s just person to person, eh. Not really the same thing at all. Just seems like an expense of energy for no good use.
“But are you challenging it person to person”
The person. I suggested as much with:
“but when I see a feminist claiming her “rights” are being taken away, ”
It’s important to note, it’s not just a feminist that is the trigger, it’s the claim of “rights” being “taken away” that is the trigger. I don’t see abortion as a “right”, it is a privilege granted by our medical technology (except where it is necessaries to save a life, then it’s a right, and a different situation as far as I’m concern). It is a process to relieve a person or persons of the consequences of their actions, it’s a matter of convenience that could be avoided by exerting ACTUAL rights. And It’s a convenience that is as much denied to men as it is insisted women should have.
And heather, its counter-productive too! Does some other group have rights you don’t but wnat? Have they gotten them before you? Hallelujah – that’s your starting place. They have made an opening everyone can come in through.
No one gave a shit about rape of men until feminists made the lack of consent the standard for rape. Yeah, people do still care more about the rape of women, but they are coming around slowly but surely to make that concern equal for all victims.
Same thing with circumcision. It was the uproar over FGM that made the discussion over MGM even possible.
Is it unfair? Okay, it is. But what do you wnat – metaphysical justice or actual progress?
“Does some other group have rights you don’t but wnat? Have they gotten them before you? Hallelujah – that’s your starting place. They have made an opening everyone can come in through.”
Unless they stand as that opening barring you from it themselves by applying double standards.
“Yeah, people do still care more about the rape of women, but they are coming around slowly but surely to make that concern equal for all victims.”
While I don’t agree with your initial assertion that nobody gave a shit about rape before feminists, my issue is with the difference in positions feminists have taken. With rape, feminists may be fine maintaining the nobody cares about male rape norm (perpetuating this with an utter absence of acknowledgement of male victims, even promoting deceptive statistics to minamalize them), but they are not actively advocating that men should not be protected by rape protection rights … they are for reproductive rights.
I’m so with you about Pro-Lifers, Typhon. If they don’t harm others or harass others, and if they aren’t secretly telling their wives/girlfriends/mistresses/daughters to have one.
Us pro-lifers don’t secretly tell our wives, girlfriends, daughters anything. We simply tell them loud and clear but to the liberals, that’s not what we should be mandated to do. Why would you bring up “mistresses” anyway? Stay the heck out of my private life. Ya’ll want to abort, go for it, I don’t care to pay for it though. Tired of the government getting their fingers into my personal life. Abortion was legal before Roe v Wade. It’s become a form a birth control.
Abortion was legal before Roe V Wade? Cite please? It’s not a form a birth control, nor should it be. Thus, ample low cost access to the pill and increased access to male contraceptives, education on how NOT to get pregnant (aside from abstinence which in my state at least appears to fail miserably), would be my plan.
Here it is election time again so let’s trot out that old liberal ‘Straw Man’. The Republicians want to limit or destroy womens’ reproductive rights! Roe vs Wade became law almost 40 years ago. It has ‘survived Republician Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republician controlled congresses , and Democratic controlled congresses. Whoever is elected will have their hands full with other important things(the economy, Iran, North Korea etc…) No Politican from any political party wants to get in the cross hairs of NOW, its political suicide! How insisting the govt pay for birth control and various ‘Hard on’ pills equates with an assault on reproductive right, I;m confused by that on.
Abortion actually is a form of birth control. It controls (i.e. prevents) birth by killing the fetus prior to birth.
Per Wikipedia, which has a good write-up on birth control:
“Birth control is an umbrella term for several techniques and methods used to prevent fertilization or to interrupt pregnancy at various stages.
Birth control techniques and methods include contraception (the prevention of fertilization), contragestion (the prevention of the implantation of the blastocyst) and abortion (the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control
Is it used as a common form? In the common vernacular? Is it used every month as per the pill or condoms?
That’s what I was referring to.
Are there people who use it as birth control? I suspect so. Do I agree? No, that’s why I think preventative BC and education is vital.
@Julie …In June 1967, the American Medical Association voted to change that
body’s long-standing opposition to abortion. With a new resolution, the
AMA now condoned abortion for the life or health of the mother, for a
baby’s ‘incapacitating’ physical deformity or mental deficiency, or for
cases of rape or incest. That same year, Colorado, North Carolina, and California became the first states to adopt versions of the ALI “reform” abortion law. By
1970, though, four states – New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington -
passed laws that basically allowed abortion on demand. Of those four,
New York’s was the only law without a residency requirement and the
state quickly became the nation’s abortion capital.
Prior to “Roe”, the legality of abortion was decided by the states; it was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain cases in 20 states.
Maybe Republicans just think that men are human beings, and not beasts?
Women, on the other hand, are livestock. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/09/georgia-republican-compares-women-to-livestock-video/
Ah…Justin wasn’t saying he actually thinks women are livestock. He was juxtaposing Anthony’s assertion that the Republican party treats men like people, with the article where a Republican compares women to livestock.
So then it’s setteled. If you’re a Republician, you’re an evil mygonistic pig. Boy that was simple!
Thanks Joanna.
Hopefully some day we can progress beyond the sound bite political discourse that rules both sides of the aisle right now. Either way, these conservative women deserve respect for having the courage to stand behind their convictions and not be treated as mindless drones bent on driving all women back in the kitchen, It’s just so much easier to satirize and minimize than to acknowledge that there could possibly be some merit to their position even if you don’t agree with it. You rock.
Thanks Rick!
I disagree. If you think women cannot have an abortion, you are anti-woman. Why? Because you are denying her the ability to make decisions based on her own moral sentiments.
Yeah I’ll just point to Joanna’s paragraph here:
“But there’s a problem in the absolutes. For many people, abortion isn’t an issue of a woman’s body. It’s an issue of killing a baby. You can argue that a 8 week-term fetus isn’t a baby—and I cannot disagree with you there—but that isn’t the point here. The point is, for the people who believe there is a soul in that fetus, you aren’t going to convince them that the right to terminate that pregnancy, and therefore that human’s life, is a women’s issue. They think of it as a human rights issue.”
Yeah, and they are trying to legislate women’s ability to disagree with them away. When they start seeing homosexuality as a human rights issue, will that change things?
Okay I don’t think you quite get what I’m saying, so I’ll try again:
I see lgbt issues as a human rights issue, and therefore I think we need legislation that protects lgbt people. (i.e. same-sex marriage, anti-bullying laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc). Someone might disagree with me, but I don’t think they should have a legal leg to stand on.
Along the same lines..if I believed that abortion was a human rights issue, I would see the rights of the fetus as being supremely important. I would think that we need legislation to protect that fetus’ rights (i.e. anti-abortion legislation).
The non-hypocritical people who are against abortion just simply don’t view it as a women’s issue. I, personally, disagree with them. I think abortion is about bodily autonomy, and I don’t think a fetus is a baby. Also…I think that being pro-life ignores the quality of life that the baby will have. But all of those arguments fall flat when someone fervently believes that the most important issue with regards to abortion is the right of a baby to be born.
It’s not that they’re against women……..but rather that they’re pro-fetus.
The point I am making is this. If how they see the issue is all that determines whether it is or isn’t a human rights issue, then we are all lost. Suppose the religious crazies decided that your soul was of paramount importance, and that being gay got you sent you to hell, and that opposing it was a human rights issue. Would that make the stance any more coherent?
Unsubstantiated beliefs are one thing if you are making the choice for yourself, entirely another when you are making the choice for someone else. That imposition, on a matter based entirely on faith, disregards a persons right to believe according to their conscience. In this case, the rights which are being imposed upon are women’s, they believe that a women is not entitled to her own moral conclusions about the fetus inside her, but rather that theirs are correct. It is anti-women because it fundamentally does not make the same demands of men.
“Suppose the religious crazies decided that your soul was of paramount importance, and that being gay got you sent you to hell, and that opposing it was a human rights issue. Would that make the stance any more coherent?”
Funnily enough, I have been told that my soul is more important than my right to have a relationship with another woman. And in that case it’s an example of someone trying to creating a law to protect me from myself, which I’m against.
In the case of abortion, it’s an attempt to protect an unborn baby from the decisions of the potential mother. Now, I think that the rights of the woman trump the rights of a fetus (because I don’t think a fetus has personhood). But that doesn’t mean I’m anti-fetus…it just means I see the rights of the woman as being more important. So take it the other way around…someone who is pro-life isn’t necessarily anti-woman. They just think that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman.
@Heather “someone who is pro-life isn’t necessarily anti-woman. They just think that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman”
Pro-life has nothing to do with being anti-women. Pro-life is for ALL life. There are Feminists for Life, New Wave Feminists For life, Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, Gays For Life.
“Pro-life has nothing to do with being anti-women.”
That’s what I said.
And of course there are feminists, etc, etc that are pro-life…because for them it’s about the rights of the fetus and giving a fetus personhood. I disagree and think that a fetus doesn’t have personhood, but I understand their position.
“… Unsubstantiated beliefs are one thing if you are making the choice for yourself, entirely another when you are making the choice for someone else. That imposition, on a matter based entirely on faith, disregards a persons right to believe according to their conscience. In this case, the rights which are being imposed upon are women’s, they believe that a women is not entitled to her own moral conclusions about the fetus inside her, but rather that theirs are correct. It is anti-women because it fundamentally does not make the same demands of men.”
When my (now happily married) wife and I became pregnant while we were dating in college, some counseled us to have an abortion. We both thought it would have been the murder of our budding child, and rejected that path out of hand. If she had chosen to kill the fetus, however, I would have been devastated, and would have lacked any recourse that I know of, beside harsh words and disillusionment.
In fact, abortion is frequently anti-man and is always anti-baby. Personally I lean agnostic on the religious front, and base my view of humans (including potential humans gestating in the womb) as the only seat of intelligence in the universe that we know of. Each baby that is killed before it can be born is another possible Isaac Newton or Claude Debussy that could have enriched us all, regardless if one believes a soul resides in that young body.
Until we have reliable artificial womb bank technology, our settled law gives the final say to the mother. However, I find it insulting that my pro-life view can only be the result of “religious crazies” indoctrination.
You can be pro-life for yourself. The moment you become pro-life for someone else, you are a religious crazy.
Abortion, while often upsetting to men, is not anti-man. It is a woman’s body, and as much as there are reasons to think men should be consulted, that is not the same as having a say in the outcomes. You can’t have that second and preserve the autonomy of women, it is a logical contradiction.
@skeptical As for the woman who is a surrogate. Of course she can terminate. She should of course, return a portion of whatever she was paid, but that contract does not give you ownership over her womb.
@heather
A fetus, a FETUS, trumps the life of a fully grown and conscious adult? Really, this is truly a false equivalence based on mystical notions of soul equivalence. If I said dog’s rights trumped the rights of women, you would rightly call me anti-woman simply due to the nature of the comparison. This case is analogous. It’s a flaming fetus, not a person. But even if you don’t agree with that, SOME people agree with that. What possible right to you have to make laws on disputed metaphysical grounds on which you can’t win a philosophical argument? And yet woman’s bodies are the battle-ground for peoples metaphysics. Again, it is anti-woman simply on the basis of the territory of battle.
@ fardarter In the case where a woman is a surrogate for the genetic mother of a fetus, should the surrogate woman surrender her ability to have an abortion if she changes her mind and does not want to carry the baby to term? Should she be compelled to have an abortion if the genetic mother changes her mind about parenthood? There have been cases where the surrogate is found to carry a baby with Down Syndrome. Should the genetic mother be compelled to accept the baby and pay for lifelong care? In this case is abortion anti-woman, and if so which woman?
http://www.findafamilyattorney.com/Featured-News/2012/Your-Rights-as-a-Surrogate-Mother.aspx
@Heather … the “quality of life?” So starts the slippery slope of Euthanasia.
Duhhh … I should have had my V-8 this moring. What was I thinking??? Debate abortion on a feminist site? What was I thinking?!?!?
“So starts the slippery slope of Euthanasia.”
By euthanasia are you just referring to an individual making the decision to end their own life, or are you referring to government mandated euthanasia to get rid of undesirable people? Are we talking Soylent Green or assisted suicide?
The whole problem with ‘assisted suicide’ to my mind is the potential for abuse. Not necessarily governmental abuse, but maybe that, too.
‘Quality of life’ tends to be a subjective notion.
“You don’t have to agree in order to respect someone, and you shouldn’t expect them to change.” I just can’t get behind this. I don’t respect individuals with racist views nor do I feel as though I’m obligated to accept those who marginalize women.
I’m just not finding humor in any of the discourse pertaining to women, these days. Who knows, maybe I’m just a humorless feminist? Or maybe I just don’t find this kind of thing funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=834jIeRQd3M&feature=relmfu
“I’m just not finding humor in any of the discourse pertaining to women, these days. Who knows, maybe I’m just a humorless feminist?”
I’m not laughing either, and I am a man and definitely not a feminist. These people are frightening and they won’t stop with contraception. and anyway contraception is the business of any man who loves the women in his life
Pro-life does not = anti-woman
@Author: “We just don’t think sexist jokes are funny.”
A funny joke is a funny joke is a funny joke: unless you feel offended by it (and you take yoursefl too seriously).
We have jokes about the worst thing happened in history, and still we find them funny (unless… see above).
Truth is, funny is not PC. Funny is often wicked: we see someone slipping on a banana peel and fall, and we laugh. It’s not we are bad people, it’s the way humour works.
That’s why humour almost always pisses someone off: it’s funny because it exposes our weaknesses and failures; it works on the “bad” side. We might not like looking at ourselves in the mirror, but a joke wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t – at least a tiny bit – true.
The problem with humour happens when someone believes “MY/OUR issue is too much serious/important to be joked about”.
Valter, you are correct in part. Humor also can be used as a way to deliver cruelty. “Hey, I was ONLY KIDDING!!!!”
It can be used as a tactic, and anyone denying that has a real issue with how humor works.
Some offensive jokes (the structure and delivery of the joke) are yes, funny well crafted, timed etc. But why not use your joke telling skills to tell a joke whose intent isn’t to hurt, bond through racism or sexism or homophobia, and rather bond another way.
Because people enjoy being cruel to each other.
Laugh all you want at the wickedness. We all do, if we’d admit it, but admit it when you know the purpose of a joke is to create a condition of one upping or downing, othering, exclusion, or just plain being a jerk.
Amen. I live in Oklahoma, and I’ve had people tell me ‘I’ll be praying for you’, and mean it as an insult.
Yep. Humor CAN be used to show off our ridiculousness, our foibles in a fair and good humored way. It can be used (gallows humor) to deal with very very difficult things. It can be used to speak truth to power as a jester might spear the King with truth disguised as comedy.
It also can be used to manipulate, hurt, attack, and “other” people. The important thing is to know the difference between these forms.
Censor it? Eh. Call it out? Hell yes. Just because you can tell a well crafted joke, doesn’t mean you should.
“We feel completely entitled to disrespect and insult people who feel differently from us.”
I have to agree Joanna, it’s one reason why I stay out of politics. I just hate how pro-lifers and pro-choicers become dishonest and create strawmen to battle. I even joke with myself that it is a battle between “baby killers” and “women hating control freaks”. As being a person who has fringe beliefs and having talked to plenty of people who believed I was wrong (I have been called brain-washed to my face a few times actually). I do believe it’s better to try to understand what your opponent believes, instead of doing things the easy way and attacking strawmen. At least it actually gives you a chance to talk with them from their perspective and it also makes you realize that they are just as human as you are.
I also wish people would stop using the word misogynist where it doesn’t really apply. The GOP folks referred to here don’t hate women.
I started reading but got bored because it’s just feminisms and has nothing to do with men.
Nothing funny in there at all, please break the stereotype.
@Archy: Alright but a conversation about parental rights is still a different one from abortion. It’s not completely separate, obviously…but it is different. A discussion of parental rights should include abortion…if abortion is legal and if the woman has a final say, then what should that mean for the responsibilities and rights of both the mother and the father? That does need to be discussed.
However, to insert that discussion into the discussion of whether abortion should be legal or not, sort of goes about it backwards. The argument shouldn’t be – abortion should be illegal because our current system of parental rights isn’t fair. Rather the argument should be – our current system of parental rights needs a rewrite, in part because abortion is legal.
Hope that makes sense.
I am a bit tired atm, I hope I haven’t derailed bigtime :S. If it’s completely offtopic, lemme know and I’ll cease immediately. If that is the case, are there any current articles the comments/discussion could continue on? Apologies in advance if that is the case.
@Julie
The only viable option would be financial and responsibility abortion, aka the man can opt out. I actually support this, that way no one needs to be forced into parenthood but sex can still be on the menu. Maybe have a clause where protection must be used.
“As per Heather, both parties should know that pregnancy is always an outcome of penetrative intercourse. They should, at best, discuss their stances on it, use whatever protection possible to avoid the pregnancy. I get that people want to fuck and damn the consequences
GIVEITTOMENOW, but that’s how little accidents happen, and if both parties don’t communicate, well….”
That is true, however pregnancy can still happen whilst using contraception as you know but only one gender has the ability to stop it. I support women’s right to abortion, it’s their body afterall, but women also choose abortion to avoid the 18 years of responsibility, a privilege men are not afforded. I do not see this as equal, even including the fact women are the ones that become pregnant, 9 months + health risk is a huge deal but so is the 18 year responsibility. If I got someone pregnant now, in my current circumstances I would literally throw up from anxiety and really be hurting as I am not financially independent, I’d have to pay child support I couldn’t afford and who knows how my mind would take it.
If I was a female I have the option of abortion, but as a male I have no option except pray the contraception works or refrain from sex. Women have the privilege of reproductive choice, and can have sex with the ability of ending any pregnancy, it’s a choice that is necessary for the pregnancy period but also has the additional effect of allowing them to opt out of motherhood. There is also the ethical question on whether a man consents to his genetic material being used for conception, not the same level as a woman’s consent to using her egg, womb, body but to me it’s still an important question. Already he has zero say over whether that fetus is to continue growth or stop, but he also has zero say over having to be responsible after birth. If a woman ignores his wishes to not be a father, has the method to continue or stop a pregnancy, then it’s her complete 100% decision on whether to continue pregnancy and become a parent whilst he has 0% of the decision.
Why should he be forced to provide for a child he does not consent to, if she has no similar obligation (due to having choice)? Abortion is obviously not only done for the risks of pregnancy, so there is more to it then simply using her body against her will. It’s also using his genetic material to fertilize against his will, they had sex but she didn’t want to be impregnated, and/or he didn’t want to impregnate her.
I am hoping for a day contraceptive methods are much better than they are today, it should avoid these hassles but I do believe there is a clear problem with reproductive rights simply because only one gender has the power to opt-out. He should never be able to force her to carry to term of course, but I do think he deserves the chance to opt-out, if that happens then she can abort, or carry to term and support it herself and hopefully there will be government to assist if finances struggle. If it makes it fairer, the cost of abortion can be split 50:50 if he opts out if that is needed.
@Heather, yeah it makes sense. I wouldn’t want abortion to be illegal, “The Cider House Rules” shocked the hell out of a younger me and made me realize when it is illegal, it’s hella dangerous and will still happen. Best to be done in a safe, sterile and expert environment.
Did you read my post? Cause we aren’t much in disagreement here. In the states I don’t believe it is a law that men automatically have to pay. The couple can negotiate no child support or sign away his rights. Does anyone have easy to access stats on how many accidental pregnancies I the us happen and wind up I court disputes about $? Maybe I don’t hear about it in my circles but most people I know who have sex have good results with bc and condoms.
I’m in Australia, I guess these arguments are locale based. I don’t believe men have any way to sign away rights like that. I saw on another website that Texas allows men to sign away their rights, is this common in the rest of the states?
Pretty much I’m in agreement with Julie on this one. As for the option to sign away parental rights – well I’m really only familiar with it in the context of surrogacy and sperm donations in the case of same-sex couples starting a family. Usually the way that works is that you sign away your rights before conception…I’m not sure how the law (in either the U.S., U.K. or Australia) works with regards to signing away rights after conception.
” In the states I don’t believe it is a law that men automatically have to pay.”
If she ever applies for any form of government assistance, they go to the father for reimbursement.
“The couple can negotiate no child support”
This requires her consent and co-operation, again, putting his “rights” in her hands. A man can’t opt out of an unwanted parenthood (like women have so many options to do in abortion, adoption and abandonment (not to mention infanticide appears to be on the table for discussion in some circles)) unless a woman lets him, and she can redact that at any time her (or his) situation changes. This isn’t the same as opting out.
“or sign away his rights.”
His rights (IE, the right to a relationship with his offspring), but not his responsibilities (IE, child support). I believe there is a single provision in law that allows a man to opt out of his responsibility, and that is for anonymous sperm donors (And I’d be willing to bet someone could get that overturned as well, if they had the desire/money to fight it)
“Does anyone have easy to access stats on how many accidental pregnancies I the us happen and wind up I court disputes about $?”
Does this matter? Should equal protections not be extended to men just because it doesn’t meet a particular quota? And why Limit it to “accidental pregnancy”?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2059548/Four-men-reveal-trauma-dad-deception.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html
Because I was curious, I fail to see what is wrong with that. Anyone doing what those women did should go to jail. O
Reply to Jullie http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/humorless-feminists-and-misogynist-republicans-the-onio/comment-page-1/#comment-136884
“Well, what’s the alternative?”
Are you not familiar with the proposed male reproductive rights, where a man can opt out of parenthood?
“And she’s got an 18 year obligation too-to the child”
The child she “choose” … not to abort, not to adopt and not to abandon, but instead, “CHOOSE” to keep.
“wow, good times!!! Sign me up for that! NOT.”
Let me ask you, if you wanted a baby, one way or the other, what’s the better deal, going to a sperm bank, paying money for invetro, then raising that child on your own, without anyone else to help support the child, or sleeping with someone (known or unknown), getting that baby, not only free of charge, but with (presumably) a good night, and getting some extra money, payment enforced by the courts (enforcement proceedings paid for by the enforcement agencies, not the mother), as a bonuns?
And if you don’t want all that, you, as a woman, have the option to opt out, it is not an obligation unless you choose to accept it.
” but who wants power over someone who disdains you”
Haven’t men been accused of wanting power over women for decades, through rape, abuse and other things that would earn a great deal of disdain? What about slave owners, did they think their slaves loved them? This is a rather weak argument.
More importantly, it isn’t a matter of a woman “wanting” power over a man, it’s that it is given to her regardless, to do with as she pleases. this isn’t equality, it’s subjugation.
“There is no way in hell I’d stay connected to him. I’d have him sign off on parental rights and let him go his merry way. Who wants 18 years of arguments, courts and more?”
If you kept the child, you would be connected whether you liked it or not. That connection may be weak if he does sign off on his rights, but he would still be the biological father of your child and have the obligation of child support, should you decide to go after it. Once establish, most of the collection work is done by enforcement agencies who take the father to court on your behalf. you only need to go for changes in payment and custody (which, if he signed away his rights, he doesn’t get).
All that said, it’s still all your choice. How does a man have reproductive rights because the mother can choose not to hassle him about it? That’s like arguing a woman has the right not to be raped because a man can choose not to rape her. it’s ridiculous.
If I wanted a child while not married there is no way in hell I’d manipulate drag someone into a pregnancy. It’s immoral. I’d go to a sperm bank. Or I’d foster/adopt. I can’t see any benefit in tricking someone, then dealing with angry legal issues all for a reasonably small amount of money and also potential hostil relations.
I believe there are terrible people out there and I am, if you’d read me more closely, on the side of reproductive rights for all, less conflict not more, more bc options not less, and not dragging a kid into total drama bullshit.
I didn’t ask you what you would do, I asked “what’s the better deal?”. The baby you wanted anyways, plus a paycheck (large or small) whose collection is enforced by the government (not you) and avoids the time and costs involved in other options, or those other options (which have the advantage of no need to fight for custody/visitation, which you are virtually assured, especially if you choose not to tell the father until the child is several years old)?
“all for a reasonably small amount of money”
That’s all one gets? a reasonably small amount of money? One doesn’t get to skip the rather costly process of artificial insemination, or the costly and time extensive process of adoption? These aren’t also benefits to the deception?
“I believe there are terrible people out there and I am, if you’d read me more closely, on the side of reproductive rights for all”
I’ve seen you suggest men can already opt out (if that were true, would it be such a significant issue? Do you think reform groups like fathers and families, would be calling for laws that already exist?) of their rights (says nothing of their responsibility), I’ve seen you suggest women can absolve men of their obligation (but this does not make it a right for men, but a boon from the woman herself), and I have seen you deny you would perform various actions, as if laws exist to protect people from other peoples best behaviour). I see you advocating for more of the same things we already have. I’m not sure, however, how you are advocating for men to get reproductive rights beyond the farce we currently enjoy, just that you have said you do.
I’ve already indicated I think tricking someone into fatherhood is morally and ethically wrong and should be penalized. I think it is very much the better deal to be mature and responsible and get pregnant at a sperm bank thereby keeping manipulation out of the deal, avoiding hurting a man or the child. Anyone thinking lying for monetary profit is a good deal is a selfish human and I feel bad for their child. As for advocacy, I write here , learn here and am doing my best to advocate in real life both by talking about the issues with people and writing here. Also, locally I promote comprehensive sex Ed which is woefully under taught in my state. Work with what we have and push forward. As I said, I’m not a lawyer, professional lobbyist or politician, so I do what I can with the reach I have. That is clearly not satisfactory to you, and I’m more than ok with that. You seem bound to see me as an opponent, when not. Thats your issue.
My problem Julie, is that laws are made to protect people from the moral, ethical, mature and responsible people, so saying what is or isn’t nice doesn’t help men when they get trapped like this. Elsewhere here I provided two links, one to an article about 4 men duped into fatherhood. The second about how the author herself, an admitted feminist, tried to do it to, not one, but two men. Worst She was getting all “pity me” over the fact she failed and had to accept she was beyond her chance to be a mother. No remorse, no sense that that was wrong, and by a successful women no less. My problem is with how easily the ideal of a man opting out gets pushed aside for various reasons.
My problem is, saying “that’s not right” and “I wouldn’t do that” is changing the subject from men need rights into women should be bad. If you were trying to speak up against rape, To advocate for change of some sort, would you accept someone insisting “I would never do that” and “moral, respectful people don’t rape”? Looking at what the world should be is not the same as addressing how the world actually is.
“That is clearly not satisfactory to you, and I’m more than ok with that.”
Not true. But I do feel injecting what “should be” as relevant to a conversation of rights isn’t support, but actually opposition. It confuses the issue. It’s like when people point out the draft hasn’t been used in ages, so there’s no reason to get rid of it… (Aside from the restrictions and consequences of those that don’t register being reason enough to address it), it ignores the fact that, while it hasn’t been used, if it’s still in effect, there is nothing stopping the government from choosing to do so if needed. Is a sword hanging on a wall, unused, any less dangerous than one worn on the hip, when finally picked up?
Remember, this conversation all started when I noted, to nether you nor heather, that I would make use of arguments used against men’s rights advocates to challenge the right to abortion. I was told it was counterproductive to be so argumentative. Why then is it not counter-productive to argue, in response to “men need reproductive rights because of XXX example”, that that shouldn’t happen? How is that any different than suggesting abortion isn’t needed because people should be more careful?
Also, for the record, I respond as I read the comment, so something said in one comment may not have been read to be accounted for in my response to another comment. I literally JUST saw your mention of thinking such women should be sent to jail (but I don’t think this is a good solution, because it becomes as he said she said as rape, all the while with a baby victim in the middle and tells the courts to put a mother in jail (and if your not aware, California is actually releasing mothers early for simply being mothers, which is on top of the already substantial gender discount on prison sentencing women get). Allowing a male to opt out remove that little incentive before conception even happens, thereby encouraging actual relationships and mutual desire for a child before it’s born. Those who want a baby are still going to dupe men, but once the mandatory is removed from the equation, I suspect a lot of men will continue to step up. And those that won’t, aren’t trapped, and all the while, the mothers can have their babies, but know they are on their own, as per their OWN CHOICE.)
Mark,
I clearly we the problems. I’m acknowledging the problems currently. I’m advocating for change. I’m not sure what you are reading, but I’m certaInly not advocating an “oh well” attitude.
What I’m really pissed about is the selfishness of both in the equation. Ladies don’t do this to the damn kid. Everybody be prepared and dont fuck without barriers.
“Everybody be prepared and dont fuck without barriers.”
And we come full circle, because this is where I usually come in with…
“and if this is good enough, why the need for abortion? If post conception measures (IE abortion) are deemed necessary, or a “right”, then why deny it to men?”
“What I’m really pissed about is the selfishness of both in the equation”
I’m a little confused here, are you deeming abortion “selfishness”? Or are you suggesting that men wanting similar rights to protect themselves from women who are deceitful, are being selfish for wanting those protections?
Wow you seem determined to cast me as an asshole. The selfishness was in regard to women maniplulating systems in lieu of going to sperm banks, people fucking and running withou dealing with the reality of a child. And I’m not denying men the options to opt out. Given as I am also an artist not a lawmaker I don’t have that authority. I don’t know why you are appearing so angry at me personally when I’m looking for ways towards advocacy for men. Or is this one of those moments you are just having fun pushing back at me for practice? If hat s the case good night and good luck. On vacation.
” The selfishness was in regard to women maniplulating systems in lieu of going to sperm banks”
Actually, you said “the selfishness of BOTH in the equation”. I am presuming, by “both”, you are referring to both the woman and the man. I’m trying to figure out where a man is being selfish by being deceived? If I misinterpreted this, please clarify.
“And I’m not denying men the options to opt out.”
Not claiming you did. But there are those that do, and worst, do so while insisting a woman’s right to abortion should not be challenged, which is where this conversation began.
” I don’t know why you are appearing so angry at me personally when I’m looking for ways towards advocacy for men. Or is this one of those moments you are just having fun pushing back at me for practice?”
I’m curious, if it’s possible to see what I’ve said as pushing back for practice, rather than angry, could it not be some other reason, also not of anger? I will admit, the part I put in quotes, beginning with “and if this is good enough”, was provided as an example of my pushing back, and I labeled it as such by pointing to going full circle and noting “this is where I usually come in with”. So it was me pushing back, but as a demonstration rather than practice.
I’ll also note that I did, in effect, point out what it was, and still resulted in being called angry for it, for whomever suggested I should note when I’m playing devils advocate.
For the second part, again, not anger, but I’ll admit to a great deal of annoyance. The idea that a man is being selfish for being deceived, and/or wanting equal protections against that deception, that very much annoys me.
I think I’m Reacting to assumptions that I’m against you. I’m not. It gets tiring when I’m perceiving that I’m communicating in good faith and in reaching out and then realize that maybe I’m being used for practice, or you assume I’m thinking men are being selfish for not wanting to not be deceived. Thats not what I’m arguing at all. I’ve stated several times it’s immoral to use a person In that way. It’s as if I’m saying x and you are assuming I’m saying y and getting annoyed at me. So if you’d like to take up this dialogue offline next week when I am back intown please email me at Julie @goodmenproject.com. I don’t want to derail anymore and I’m not entirely sure where the breakdown here is. Anyway. I wasn’t using you for practice.
I never said men were selfish for wanting equity or reproductive protection. My phone is dying so I can’t elaborate.
My most recent confusion appears to lay in what you mean by “the selfishness of BOTH in the equation” (From comment bellow). You took offense when I interpreted it as both the woman and man. If you could clarify, it would help.
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/humorless-feminists-and-misogynist-republicans-the-onio/comment-page-1/#comment-136973
Also see my comment (bellow) for another area I think we’re miscommunicating:
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/humorless-feminists-and-misogynist-republicans-the-onio/comment-page-1/#comment-137164
In particular, the part on how what “should be” in discussions of problems and solutions can be interpreted.
Let me paraphrase how I’ve seen the conversation so far:
Heather: Someone needs the authority with regards to abortion.
Archy: That’s a lot of power over a man:
You: What’s the alternative, and who would want that power over someone who disdains you, I wouldn’t
Me: Opting out is the alternative, and here is a comparison of benefits for doing that vs alternative conception methods, which is the better deal?
You: I wouldn’t do that
Me: but’s which is the better deal?
You: it’s wrong and immoral for someone to do that.
(keep in mind your original question here. You asked “why would a woman want that power over someone who would disdain them for it. I answered that question, and you’re not acknowledging that answer in relation to your own question, instead arguing what should and shouldn’t be.)
And then the breakdown continues from here.
Hope you’re enjoying your vacation.
(I tried to email, but couldn’t seem to get the email address provided to be recognized.)
Huh, julie@goodmenproject.com but I can email u next week
Okey pokey dokey…at the risk of possibly derailing this a little further…let me try and, I dunno, provide some translation or something. So first for the simple:
Julie and I believe that men should have an opt-out option for unwanted pregnancies. Julie and I also believe that there should be more contraceptive options for men (i.e. the male pill). Julie and I also believe that a household with more family (rather than, say a single parent) is better for children. We also acknowledge that current law regarding paternal rights and responsibilities needs to be addressed so that men don’t end up having to pay child support for a child they did not have a say in not aborting.
Now for the slightly more complicated: I think a lot of the issue we all are having understanding each other here is in where we’re putting the focus. Julie and I tend to be more…future-oriented in our comments, I think. We acknowledge and identify the problems with current gender inequalities, but I think often our focus is on saying – okay and how do we change that? It might sound as though we’re glossing over the issues, but we’re not. We ‘re just focusing more on the solution, rather than the problem.
I think we’re also having a bit of a breakdown when it comes to understanding human nature. Mark (and Tom) I think you guys are a little bit more willing to believe the worst in people. Julie and I obviously acknowledge that there are some really horrible people out there, and that people do behave in horribly selfish ways…but on the whole I think we’re a bit more optimistic about humanity. I think we see a lot of the selfishness and horribleness but again, sort of look to the future, and say – okay how can we (as a society) move beyond this and combat this?
The original issue that Julie had was very similar to mine, actually…which was to do with the discussion tactics you use, Mark, not the content of your position. In other words, she agrees with your position regarding parental rights…I think her issue was just with the use of that argument against abortion.
So finally, I just want to say that I’m not trying to put words into anyone’s mouth…just trying to maybe bridge the gap a bit.
Women going to a sperm bank is selfish too, women who intentionally have children without a dad for them is selfish. BAD men who walk away from their kids, GOOD women who have kids without a dad. Talk about control?
I’m being misinterpreted. Between the poles of “trick a man” or “go to sperm bank” I think the better choice is sperm bank as there is no tricking of a man. I believe children do better with more family rather than less. Be it hetero or queer, the more support and consistency the better. But if a woman is determined to get pregnant, I’d prefer her to adopt or go to a sperm bank rather than lie or trick another person to get what she wants. I don’t think anyone should bring a child int the world unless they are ready to focus on the child. You all seem quite determined to see me as someone who doesn’t support men and children. I’ve been partnered with my man fOr 19 years and were well prepped to have our kids. The child is probably my most important focus, but I most certainly don’t believe women should lie to sexual partners to get pregnant. I keep saying that. It’s as if people aren’t reading it. In the best world, kids would have consisten loving adults caring for them. If a woman chooses to go it alone it’s far more selfish to trick someone.
“partnered?” Not married?
@Julie … the way you said some things in your response really bothers me.
You said “I believe children do better with more family rather than less” you also said “kids would have consisten loving adults caring for them” … where is the “father” or “dad” in anything you said? Why is it so hard to actually say “kids are better off having an active DAD in their lives?” Your evasiveness is concerning to me.
It’s because I do not believe only one type of family stucture is the “best” way. I believe gay and lesbian parents can and do (if they are mature and loving and secure) provide wonderful supportive homes for children. So do straight couples if they are mature, loving and secure. So might a father and grandfather. So might a mother and aunt. Now, a straight couple that is not doing well with each other (could be anger issues could be money) might not do a good job. I’m quite positive about lgbt in every way, Tom, and I suspect you know that already. I believe there are many types of families and my key indicators for health are likely different than yours.
Partnered is an inclusive way to discuss couples who are committed but not married. Some out of choice, some because their union may not be legal in some states. Gay people and others.
“The child she “choose” … not to abort, not to adopt and not to abandon, but instead, “CHOOSE” to keep.”
Well that’s a bit like…if she believes that the fetus is alive and a person, it’s not really much of a choice, there. If she believes abortion is murder…then the ‘choice’ not to murder her unborn baby isn’t really something that negates the 18 years obligation.
Alrighty I’m curious whether anyone has a link or a citation or something for the bit of our legal code with deals with signing away parental rights and it’s connection to seeking child support after that. It’s not that I don’t think you know what you’re talking about Mark…I’m just really curious to see it or some law professor’s analysis of it, or something along those lines.
“then the ‘choice’ not to murder her unborn baby isn’t really something that negates the 18 years obligation.”
You ignored the adoption and abandonment options I also mentioned, which DO negate that 18 year obligation and are ALSO options men don’t have, (and also aren’t protect from regarding the impact on his parental rights)
“Alrighty I’m curious whether anyone has a link or a citation or something for the bit of our legal code with deals with signing away parental rights and it’s connection to seeking child support after that.”
I can’t provide you any such code (i’m an artist, not a lawyer), but I can suggest that you google “rape” and “forced to pay child support” and ask yourself, if one can sign away ones responsibility to support ones child, would not victims of statuary rape who don’t want a child and thus, fight against child support and paternity, be advised to do so? Or are the judges seeing it as more important to protect a woman abuser than a child?
Mark, don’t ya love the “Abandonment option?” That means the women can have the baby, drop him/her off somewhere safe and completely ignore the fact that there may be a dad out there that may want to raise that child? But at least they didn’t abort.
MANY men are willing to take that baby rather then having him/her aborted. I have two kids on the unit that are struggling with the fact their OG’s had abortions and they could do nothing about it.
What appears to be the norm is that men really don’t give a crap about the unborn because THEY don’t have to carry the baby. Sign off on their rights? Yeah, as though most men don’t care if he has a child …. no big deal right?
I hear all this crap abouy men and women being equal but when it comes to abortion, men are seen as the jerks that feminists have made them out to be. Have I seen one post from the feminists or the egalitarians for that matter as to how men may feel when their child is aborted? What happen to all the so called “empathy and compassion and care” for how men feel. There is none.
Ooh I’ve seen posts that discuss men’s emotions after an abortion… trust me you dont want to see them.
It’s easier for a father (who knows he’s a father) to get a child that was abandoned back from the state than it is for him to interrupt an adoption and exercise his parental rights. I also think it’s better that babies who are going to be abandoned by their mother one way or the other , have it done somewhere they can survive, rather than a dumpster somewhere. That said, the lack of accountability does bother me, and again, the double standard of “A father must step up and take responsibility for his child, but a mother can leave her child on a doorstep without any indication of who it’s parents are (and therefore, it’s right (as dictated by the UN human rights commission) to know where they come from)
“MANY men are willing to take that baby rather then having him/her aborted. I have two kids on the unit that are struggling with the fact their OG’s had abortions and they could do nothing about it.”
Well at the risk of starting up an argument again, I’ll point out the problem with that statement – it means that the woman has to bring the baby to term. Ideally, I suppose, we’d have come up with a way to remove a fetus and put it into an artificial womb where it could develop so that the father could take the baby. Unfortunately we’re not there yet.
I think the safe drop points are absolutely necessary, I just also think that men should have an option to safely drop their parental rights and responsibilities too.
And Mark, like I said, I’m not challenging that you know what you’re talking about…I’d just also be interested in hearing it talked about by a lawyer. Only because, so much of our legal code is so freaking obtuse and complicated…I’d like to know exactly how what is written compares to what actually happens in family court.
Tom made a comment bellow on it.
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/humorless-feminists-and-misogynist-republicans-the-onio/comment-page-1/#comment-137292
It’s been said that Planned Parenthood is all for “educating” women before they choose an abortion, right? I’ve heard it for years. So why is it that they (including feminists in general) are so against 3-d ultrasounds? Isn’t it all about educating and making an informed decision?
Why aren’t you out there DEMANDING that abortion clinics be held at the same healthcare standard ass other medical facilities? Many states have tried to regulate these facilities yet there is continued resistance … how come?
Regarding giving away fathers rights … ”
In some cases, a father might continue to be held responsible for financially supporting his biological child even after he gives up his paternal rights. For example, if the mother must seek governmental assistance in order to support the child, a judge has the authority to terminate parental rights. He can still require the father to pay child support until the child reaches adulthood. This results in the father still being financially responsible for the child without having any visitation rights or say in how the child is raised. An example of this is in the unpublished court opinion of Illinois DHFS v. Warner, Ill., Illinois Supreme Court, January 25, 2008.”
Read more: Giving Up a Father’s Parental Rights | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4607235_giving-up-father_s-parental-rights.html#ixzz1qhMyhPnN
Who is control?
“In every US State, a single mother has Sole Custody AND Control of a child born outside wedlock, regardless of the living circumstances of the parents. The only specific right the father of the child possesses is the right to petition the court for some level of access and custody rights.”
“In most states you have the legal obligation to provide financial support to the mother of your child during the course of her pregnancy if you wish to prevent her from putting the child up for adoption. Some states even require that you sign a registry of potential fathers in order to contest the adoption of your child”
Julie, you said “It’s because I do not believe only one type of family stucture is the “best” way. I believe gay and lesbian parents can and do (if they are mature and loving and secure) provide wonderful supportive homes for children. So do straight couples if they are mature, loving and secure. So might a father and grandfather. So might a mother and aunt. Now, a straight couple that is not doing well with each other (could be anger issues could be money) might not do a good job. I’m quite positive about lgbt in every way, Tom, and I suspect you know that already. I believe there are many types of families and my key indicators for health are likely different than yours”.
Julie, I’m sorry of it appears that I’m on your case but you write for The Good Men Project, key word “men.” So I guess what the topics in the group has something to do with “men” and more specifically in this thread “fathers.” Why would you bring up the all inclusive extended family. I know the importance of the family but we’re talking about dads.
Your views appear to be influenced by your work in other areas such as GLBT. There are approximately 11 million (3%) gays and lesbians in the country. Of that number, the 2010 ACS estimated same-sex married couples at 152,335 and same-sex unmarried partners at 44,989. So, for argument sake, the two combined are 200,000. According to the 2010 census, 110,000 couples are raising children. I can only presume the issues of abortion and denied visitation and accusations of rape are far less than that in the heterosexual community. And I should also note that if there are custody battles, they may include a hetero person who was once involved with one of the gay partners. I wasn’t able to find any stats on the number of custody battles in gay and lesbian couples.
I appreciate your work with the GLBT and I commend you for that work. But what we’re talking about here are men who have lost their rights, in particular fathers and the affects that it’s had on children. I empathize with the struggles gays and lesbians have in today’s society but unlike the gay and lesbian movement, men’s issues are far greater reaching. Although there is still discrimination and prejudice against gays and lesbians, you have to admit that they have a very strong lobby and overwhelming political support.
Now, in contrast to what I’ve stated above, take a look at the hetero world. Almost 400,000 moms are behind in their child support. 400,000! That’s almost equal to the total number of gay and lesbian couples combined. (note, the “percent “ deadbeat moms exceed the “percent” of deadbeat dads)
Like I said, I respect and commend your work with the GLBT but in my opinion, it’s influenced your views.
One last thing, I guess you answered my question about being married? From what you said, you’re not married?
I am well aware where i am posting, Tom. I’m aware that gay men read this site. I have been with my husband for 19 years. We are married. I had a marvelous father and I love what fathers bring to families. I e already noted ad nauseum in many threads that I think the state of affairs around rights and custody needs a major overhaul, that men need and deserve better birth control options. You asked why I mentioned families instead of fathers. I answered. Families can have gay men. Families can have single fathers, grandfathers, uncles. And they can also have women.
Julie, thank you for finally answering my question. I struggle with your not simply saying that you were married when I first asked. Why skirt around the question? And yes, in my eyes it does matter simply because it shows that “marriages” work.
Extended family IS important but we also have to look at the additional ramifications of the father’s issues and that’s how the extended family is affected as well. So I’m glad you brought it up.
“Communication” between men and women regarding these issues are key. When we’re talking about fathers rights, men’s rights in general and GLBT is brought into the fold, I have to tell ya, it gets frustrating. As I said gays and lesbians have a strong lobby and a lot of political support so accordingly, they are not looking at the same problems, they aren’t climbing the same mountain.
That being said, there are some similarities in men’s struggles and that is for example, stereotyping men as being inept dads or inept in general. But you have to be honest, given that you’ve seen the evolution of the feminist movement. A hard core feminist will ingratiate a gay men where they won’t a heterosexual man. Feminists will fight for the rights of gays but shut down the rights of heterosexual men.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to question who you are but when someone is evacive, it causes me to wonder. Congrats on your 19 years and all I can say is that it gets better. After 38 years, I still miss her when she’s not next to me at night. (Last night my wife spent the night at our daughters – I slept like crap.)
“When we’re talking about fathers rights, men’s rights in general and GLBT is brought into the fold, I have to tell ya, it gets frustrating. As I said gays and lesbians have a strong lobby and a lot of political support so accordingly, they are not looking at the same problems, they aren’t climbing the same mountain.”
Alrighty Tom, I will be honest; I read this and became extremely angry. So while I’m trying to form my response with as little sarcasm and snark as possible, I can’t guarantee that it’s completely snark-free. With that in mind:
First, Julie didn’t inject lgbt issues into this conversation; she just made one reference to “family” instead of “father” and you somehow took that to mean she was ignoring fathers. “Family” is an inclusive term which includes fathers, but also acknowledges that not all families include a father. As she says, gay men read this site (heck I found this site via afterelton.com) so she kept her comment inclusive.
As to the question of whether gay and lesbian families have similar issues with custody that straight men face, well I’d say that actually we face the same issues plus more. The only issue we don’t have is with regards to unplanned pregnancy, for obvious reasons. But when it comes to custody fights…we often end up with at least three parties involved, and there is always tension between whether a biological parents should get custody over a non-biological parent. Then, of course, there are states in which the non-bio parent can’t even legally adopt the child, so custody battles in those situations pretty much leave out the non-bio parent entirely. Yeah people do use sperm banks, but most of the lgbt people I know really prefer to have the second bio parent be someone they know.
So actually gay men are climbing the same mountain with regards to paternal rights…plus a few other mountains at the same time.
Oh I almost forgot…and seeing as same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in most states, and domestic partnerships aren’t recognized in most states, it makes custody battles even more problematic.
So yeah, a discussion about paternal rights and responsibilities should certainly include lgbt families. After all, every single lgbt family has had to negotiate paternal rights and responsibilities in some way.
This
Yes, are there ways to work together woul be my question. Thanks heather.
Tom, I’m not being evasive. I’m on vacation only using a phone, which I’ve mentioned, losing signal, and not able to fully read threads in a manner that works as well as being with a computer. Also, I’ve made mention of my husband many times in articles and threads. The fact that i write here specifically should indicate that im pro men, pro equal rights and pro figuring it out together. But your assumption of my evasiveness is telling.
Yes our marriage has worked. So too have the marriages of our close friends ( gay males, several couples) and the beautiful children they have raised. So too, our lesbian friends with kids, 15 – 20 year relationships all. I wish they could get married too. So do they.
I know MANY straight marriages that have failed miserably. Some work. Some don’t.
That the lgbt lobby isn’t working with men? How do find the intersections. Oth with them and feminists. Of which I am one. The intesections are what interest me, not the silos. Because there could. E real change.
Traveling today.
I disagree with you here tom. It is not disrespectful to dads to be inclusive. Julie’s saying partner is as inclusive or exclusive to mothers as much as fathers. And the fact this is a site about men does not mean ever word spoken must be about men. Partnered is a legitimate term, it is not exclusive of dads, but rather, simply inclusive of the mom/mom dynamic (as much as it is the dad/dad dynamic). To take offense to the use partnered simply because it isn’t specifically saying “dad/father/male” is as problematic when gynocentric feminists get upset at MRA’s for not including women in a discussion. I can understand bringing up your concern at the term, but she has explained it to you as inclusive of all, not exclusive of fathers, so there should not be reason for offense.
Mark, I understand what you’re saying but in so far as using “dad/father/male? in relationship to the potential of upsetting feminists because “women” are not included in the MRA’s, I honestly don’t care if it upsets them. MRA’s are too busy fighting for mens rights and more specifically fathers rights … we aren’t going to play the PC game.
That’s fine, but you are taking offence because others ARE playing the PC game. That’s where my problem rests here. Nobody is asking you to be all inclusive, but getting upset because others choose to be is as bad as the gynocentric feminists demanding everything be about women, as you yourself describe with the “upsetting feminists because “women” aren’t included”. Aren’t you likewise getting upset because women were included? If Julie was demanding you be PC and inclusive, I would support you, but that’s not what happened.
Also note here inclusive “partner” also includes the dad/dad relationship, which includes no women and is relevant to the discussion.
@Julie … Sorry I offended you. I thought this was a venue where I could be open and honest about feeling and perceptions. I think I was clear about my admiration of you and your efforts but that doesn’t appear to hold any weight.
As a hetero MAN, What I was saying, perhaps not clearly enough, is what hetero men feel but as it’s been made clear in responses within various article topics that some really don’t want to hear what we (men) have to say. I was not challenging you in that I know your heart is in the right place.
Gay and Lesbian parents have one advantage over the heterosexual community of men and that its they have, as I said before, a very strong lobby and a lot of political support which the average man doesn’t have. The advantage also means there is a disadvantage in that gays and lesbians struggle with unique issues that are over and above.
“As a hetero MAN, What I was saying, perhaps not clearly enough, is what hetero men feel.”
I think this is sort of part of the problem with our discussion. It seems to me like you’ve positioned yourself as someone whose perspective and opinions are shared by the rest of your gender. Or rather…that your perspective is average and the norm, and are thus claiming a certain authority in this topic…by virtue of being what you consider average. But that doesn’t quite work…you can’t speak to the Male Perspective any more than I can speak to the Female Perspective, because such a thing doesn’t exist. There are male perspectives and female perspectives, and they are all relevant when discussing gender issues.
Obviously Julie and I want to hear what men have to say…that’s why we’re both here. But we’re interested in hearing the kaleidoscope of experiences and opinions of all sorts of men. Where we end up butting heads is when someone comes in and says “men feel this way,” or “men are like this,” because it implies a false uniformity on the gender.
Being that I have been involved in fathers rights and in general MRA’s for more then 25 years, I can pretty much feel comfortable with what I’m saying. The “Kaleiddoscope of experiences” is not made up of as many colors as some would like to believe. I can say “men feel this way” because contrary to many on here, I have been listening to men for over 25 years. I know what many boys are saying because I have been working directly with male adolescents for more then 13 years. If you don’t want to hear what I have to say, that’s cool but don’t discard what I say or assume that I’m speaking out my behind simply because it doesn’t fit into your wanting to believe that men actually have a kaleidoscope of experiences. Men’s experiences whenit comes down to real issues, are very similar with one another.
Hi Tom,
I didn’t feel offended. I felt frustrated and your use of the word evasive appeared to indicate that you thought I was lying/hiding for some not so positive purpose. I was actually trying to make my phone work, answer posts while I should have been paying attention at the panels I was at. You may be as open and honest as you wish Tom, no one is stopping you.
What strikes me, is that our commenting threads are “always a new day” meaning, it doesn’t matter if I’ve commented positively in one thread about fatherhood and it’s been read by you (or your comments read by me)…when there is a new thread, people seem to get their hackles ready to rise and forget the good kind words mentioned in previous threads. We don’t take our good faith with us as we travel.
Maybe. Not sure, but that seems to happen often here. And I’m not particularly referencing me. Just noticing that it happens to many of us.
“Sure, I get the humor. It’s funny because apparently it makes no sense that women would support the GOP, as apparently all Republicans are sexist bastards.”
I thought the humor was supposed to be comparing voting republican to dating asshole guys.
I thought the humor was deliberately ambiguous as is often the case with articles from The Onion. I think it could also be satirizing the overblown idea that the Republican party is engaged in a war against women. If its engaged in a war against women then it is indeed funny in a certain sense that so many women are Republican. Hence the “they must dig the bad boys” joke.