« NY Times Watch: "Oh No They Didn't" Edition | Main | A Kindler, Gentler War on Terror »

March 16, 2009

Nice Double Standard, There...

What the...????

I love the way the author of the article blames men for women's manipulation and irresponsibility:
But, seriously, if a man takes a risk like that, he has to face the consequences. The woman, meanwhile, needs to make sure she has unprotected sex with the right kind of man.

Where is the blame here? I see only a completely rational and uncontroversial assertion: the only way to prevent a baby you don't want is to use birth control. This is not a responsibility that can be delegated - by either sex.

And manipulation? In what rational universe does honestly disclosing the fact that you're not using birth control constitute "manipulation"? Seems to me the man had all the information he needed to avoid a pregnancy if that wasn't what he wanted, yet chose to assume the risk:

I haven't used contraception for years and years - I hate taking the Pill - and I'm always entirely honest about that with the men I sleep with.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is having unprotected sex with me, then he knows what he is doing, and if he doesn't, then he is just arrogant and more fool him.

Bingo. There is a word for men who have unprotected sex with women they KNOW aren't on birth control: fathers. Why the double standard? Why is it irresponsible for a woman to have unprotected sex, but if a man knowingly makes exactly the same choice he's not only NOT being irresponsible, but we're supposed to feel sorry for him because he was manipulated by the old full disclosure trick? Good God.

If you're not old enough to know where babies come from, odds are you shouldn't be having sex at all.

The innocent victim in all of this is the child. A woman who is up front about the fact that she's not using birth control is flat out telling the man he's taking the risk of conceiving an unwanted child if he doesn't use some form of contraception.

This is hardly rocket science. We have really fallen as a society when the bar is set this low.

Bottom line: she's wrong and he's wrong too. And all the nonsense in the comments section about how two wrongs make a right is just a race to the bottom of the morality barrel with an innocent child as the victim.

Grow the hell up.

Posted by Cassandra at March 16, 2009 10:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2779

Comments

"This is hardly rocket science. We have really fallen as a society when the bar is set this low."
Yet another common sense item that apparently is not quite so common as it once was.
"Grow the hell up."
I don't think I'm going to be holding my breath on that one.

Posted by: bthun at March 16, 2009 10:46 PM

The comments were an absolutely priceless exposition of the "Don't blame me - she did it first!" school of moral relativism.

Impressive. My sons grew out of that one by the time they were about 16.

Of course, I didn't encourage that line of thinking either. I especially enjoyed the assertion that men have a right to unprotected and consequence-free sex :p

If it feels good, do it!

Posted by: Cass at March 16, 2009 10:56 PM

Haven't you heard? Everyone's a victim...except for employed White males.

Posted by: camojack at March 17, 2009 01:27 AM

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think anyone - male or female - has any inherent right to just do whatever feels groovy to them at the moment and walk away from the consequences.

There's a whole other person here many of Dr. Helen's commenters don't bother thinking about: a child.

But hey - if the man is "victimized" by the obvious consequence of his own freely made choice, the woman can always just have an abortion!

Because it really is all about him and what he feels like doing at the moment.

Posted by: What Am I - Chopped Liver? at March 17, 2009 05:51 AM

Babies come from rockets?

There is another word for being responsible: Abstention. This way you avoid manipulation, parenthood and other people making fun of you on the interwebs.

Posted by: Cricket at March 17, 2009 10:25 AM

I especially enjoyed the assertion that _____ have a right to unprotected and consequence-free sex :p

This is really the underpinning problem.

Today, for right or wrong, men don't have a (legal) right to unprotected and (legal) consequence-free sex. But women do.

So either men need to gain this right, or women need to lose it.

I prefer the latter. The creation of a child isn't about *your* rights to a moment of pleasure. It's about your duty to the child you created.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 10:26 AM

Just to be a pain, let me point something out.

Women don't have a "right" to have unprotected sex and avoid consequences. The fact of the matter is, men can (unless the woman goes to court) just walk away from an unintended pregnancy scot free. That's not an option *any* woman has.

A woman who gets pregant, will incur - at the very least - the expense and risk of an abortion. Not to mention the emotional fallout, which can be both painful and long-lasting.

At worst, she's dealing with the realization that NEVER again - for nearly two decades - will she be able to do ANYTHING - not go to work, to the store, on an out of town visit, on a date - without first making sure someone is taking care of the child.

Few men understand what that's like. It's not a trivial responsibility.

Generally it's left to the woman to take care of details like that. It's assumed to be her responsibility, even within marriage and even if she works :p

Even with all the supposed equality these days, we haven't gotten away from that pesky biology thing. I've rarely if ever seen a man voluntarily assume equal responsibility for who's watching baby. He may help with changing diapers, but nearly all of them assume they can come and go as they please and someone else will make sure the children are watched. There are a lot of reasons for this, but just as women rarely understand how it feels to be the primary breadwinner with all the attendent cares, men rarely understand how it feels for there never to be a single moment in your life where you aren't primarily responsible for the safety and welfare of a completely dependent human being.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 11:27 AM

And obviously, the above doesn't apply to custodial fathers.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 11:33 AM

Which is why I specified "legal", not "moral".

A woman can legally walk away from a pregnancy with legal blessing.

A man who walks away from a pregnancy can be greated by the cops for back child support and thrown in jail.

I won't dispute the discrepancy in the responsibilities each gender tends to accept for themselves. I agree, they are not equal. But as you said, two wrongs don't make a right.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 12:26 PM

Today, for right or wrong, men don't have a (legal) right to unprotected and (legal) consequence-free sex. But women do.

And I don't think that's right. But I also am not sure how far the law can go to redress biology.

I see nothing wrong in requiring a man legally to bear responsibility if it can be shown he is the father of an unplanned child. As I've written many, many times, I do think it unfair that he has legal responsibiity, but no legal rights.

I think women how have more legal rights (it's not always easy to get - much less enforce - a paternity award. The good guys pay. The bad ones still walk away) but less moral responsibility.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 12:38 PM

But I also am not sure how far the law can go to redress biology

I'm not sure, well, I should take that back. I'm pretty sure the law *should not* redress biology. The law should be completely neutral with respects to gender. The presence or lack thereof of certain plumbing should not change legalities.

I see nothing wrong in requiring a man legally to bear responsibility if it can be shown he is the father of an unplanned child.
1) I would take out "unplanned", but otherwise I agree.
2) I think this works just as well if you substitute "woman" and "mother". Which goes back to the whole plumbing-neutral thing.

it's not always easy to get - much less enforce - a paternity award
I'm not quite so sure about this given the number of paternity awards against men who aren't even the father.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 01:14 PM

just to add a bit of something to the discussion either way...

there are 23 forms of birth control that women can use.. one of them is sterility, and another is abstinence.

there are only three that man can use.
one of them is steriity, another is abstinence, and a third is the condom... (which reduces sensitivity (which is the reason the women complain about the female condom but belittle men for), and for some men to the point where they cant function at all)

the women can stack up... iud, foam, and pill
(not recomending, just saying what many do do that dont secretly want the outcome).

the men cant. combining a condom with abstinence is wierd, and combining a condome with sterility is paranoid, and combining abstinence with sterility is germophobic...

how the one with really crappy choices is completely responsible, while the other who chooses not to bother with one or more of the 23 different forms, is not responsible for her actions at all...

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

i guess its the feminist way to bribe their constitiency since potus has the money..


Posted by: artfldgr at March 17, 2009 01:17 PM

Women don't have a "right" to have unprotected sex and avoid consequences.

actually they do.

they can drop the kid off at any police, hospital or fire department and abandon it, and not have to pay child support, not have to tell the father, or any of that.

they can have an abortion almost up to teh day of birth... paid for by taxes...

they do not have to buy protection, planned parenthood gives it out (which destroyed the market for the better sponge again), including iuds, and other things.

technically they can accident themselves, punch themselve,s even have someeone do it too them...as was actually done - the man went to prison for attempted murder, she did not.

before birth she can contract the adoption and get care and other things for it, including houseing, but nto be considered paid.

there are a lto more things too...

mine faked her murder... i was nearly indicted, my career destroyed, all savings stolen, and it ended up joing custody... where she took off with the kid after and i got to see him maybe 7 times in 15 years if that many.. sometime during this period she took him and the other two kids and robbed a bank serving 1.5 in fed for it. i couldnt get custody... and ended up paying her for the kid, even though he stopped living with her...


such a right is not valid...

but in ability, such a right exists and is granted to those willing to act.

Posted by: artfldgr at March 17, 2009 01:24 PM

and for some men to the point where they cant function at all)

Ummm... art. If you're not in an exclusive relationship with someone you trust completely, not wearing a condom is just plain dumb.

I'm sure of about the paternity award thing, Yu-Ain, because for nearly 30 years now I've heard about (and known) many, many women who had child support orders who were getting NOTHING and kept having to go back to court (which costs money each time) OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This is a big problem in the military.

Usually even going back to court doesn't help. The man just moves or quits his job, or arranges to get paid in cash under the table. People complain about "draconian" laws now, but they don't address how hard it used to be to collect child support - and often still is today.

Now we're not talking about alimony here.

We're talking about child support. I don't have much use for a man who gets a woman pregnant and won't help with the expenses of raising a child he could have prevented had he taken precautions.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 01:26 PM

And art: I bore two sons.

Unless you're prone to miscarriages, it's hard to unseat a healthy child. Also I can't help wondering why anyone would sleep with a crazy woman without protection?

Actions have consequences. Guys love to complain about how "the crazy b**ch" did them wrong. And nothing excuses actions like the ones you describe.

But as I've pointed out many, many times before, just as a woman needs to exercise care and judgment in who she becomes intimate with, so do men. They need to learn to be a little more discriminating with respect to the person behind that wrapper that attracts them.

Women are people. I will never excuse a woman for doing something wrong or acting irresponsibly just because she's a woman. But likewise I will never excuse a man for doing the exact same things.

Sex isn't just recreation. It has real consequences, to real people.

When you choose to have sex with someone you aren't married to, you are *choosing* to make yourself vulnerable to, and intimate with, someone who has made NO commitment whatsoever to you. Men all too often think this is some sort of game.

It isn't. But if men want to sleep with people they aren't married to and don't want a child, they need to use birth control. It isn't "optional" and it's not a responsibility that can be delegated.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 01:34 PM

The fact of the matter is, men can (unless the woman goes to court) just walk away from an unintended pregnancy scot free. That's not an option *any* woman has.


not true... a woman can.. and if you tell me your state i will tell you the legal statutes... a recent error in the law allowed parents to abandon 16 year olds in one state...

however, the man can not do that.

she can name 5 men and play test them..
heck, a loonie nearly got to compel david letterman!!!

failure to turn up in court and take the test when she names you is a defacto judgment in her favor, and is not reversible.. you become the parent legally and it permanent for the sake of the child..

with the new gay marraige, two women can marry and have 6 forms of income... two from the state, two from the men, and two frmo themselves.

they can also get mor from the men if they have a good lawyer, as they can tag the defacto, and tag the blood father too.

the fathers have no choice, and visitation is not linked to it.


www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

Many State legislatures have enacted legislation to address infant abandonment and infanticide in response to a reported increase in the abandonment of infants. Beginning in Texas in 1999, "Baby Moses laws" or infant safe haven laws have been enacted as an incentive for mothers in crisis to safely relinquish their babies to designated locations where the babies are protected and provided with medical care until a permanent home is found. Safe haven laws generally allow the parent, or an agent of the parent, to remain anonymous and to be shielded from prosecution for abandonment or neglect in exchange for surrendering the baby to a safe haven.

To date, approximately 47 States and Puerto Rico have enacted safe haven legislation.1 The focus of these laws is protecting newborns. In approximately 15 States, infants who are 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished to a designated safe haven.2 Approximately 14 States and Puerto Rico accept infants up to 1 month old.3 Other States specify varying age limits in their statutes.4

none of these laws allow the father the same out..

nor do they allow a father who finds out later, to then be a father and get his child back!

In 21 States, the provider is required to ask the parent for family and medical history information.10 In 17 States, the provider is required to attempt to give the parent or parents information about the legal repercussions of leaving the infant and information about referral services.11 In four States (California, Connecticut, Delaware, and North Dakota), a copy of the infant's numbered identification bracelet may be offered to the parent as an aid to linking the parent to the child if reunification is sought at a later date.

the father is not to be informed...

In approximately 13 States, anonymity for the parent or agent of the parent is expressly guaranteed in statute.12 In 28 States and Puerto Rico, the safe haven provider cannot compel the parent or agent of the parent to provide identifying information.13 In addition, 13 States provide an assurance of confidentiality for any information that is voluntarily provided by the parent.14

In addition to the guarantee of anonymity, most States provide protection from criminal liability for parents who safely relinquish their infants. Approximately 30 States and Puerto Rico do not prosecute a parent for child abandonment when a baby is relinquished to a safe haven.15 In 16 States, safe relinquishment of the infant is an affirmative defense in any prosecution of the parent or his/her agent for any crime against the child, such as abandonment, neglect, or child endangerment.16

The privileges of anonymity and immunity will be forfeited in most States if there is evidence of child abuse or neglect.


the fact is, that the women can walk away...
and even if the men go to court, they have no rights.

in fact thats what the judge said on the record in my case... men have no rights, shut up.

when you read below...
remember that the father isnt told, or his name is not on the birth cert..

and if it is, and she gets state funds, she does NOT have to go to court to attach funds from him. in fact they can claim they dont know where he is, get a judgment, and suddenly find him to collect!!!!!

so its automatic done by the staet in many cases and she has no right to even stop it!!!! (some parents agree between themselves. too bad, the collective has spoken).

Once the safe haven provider has notified the local child welfare department that an infant has been relinquished, the department assumes custody of the infant as an abandoned child. The department has responsibility for placing the infant, usually in a preadoptive home, and for petitioning the court for termination of the birth parent's parental rights. Before the baby is placed in a preadoptive home, 12 States require the department to request the local law enforcement agency to determine whether the baby has been reported as a missing child.17 In addition, four States (Illinois, Missouri, Utah, and Wyoming) require the department to check the putative father registry before a termination of parental rights petition can be filed.

Approximately 18 States have procedures in place for a parent to reclaim the infant, usually within a specified time period and before any petition to terminate parental rights has been granted.18 Five States (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee) also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child. In 12 States and Puerto Rico, the act of surrendering an infant to a safe haven is presumed to be a relinquishment of parental rights to the child, and no further parental consent is required for the child's adoption.19

so she has the ability to deny his parental rights with zero repercussions.

what people know about whats is happening is much like what they believe and know about obama..

check the fact and the laws.
they do not match at all, what is "common knowlege".

how could they? family court is a secret court, where the agents of the court have more power thn the police (no warrants, and can take the kids with no court appearance not allowing the parents to know... and then examinig them medically and other things...all suddenly with strangers. even if you get your kids back, they hurt them forever!!!)

sigh

Posted by: artfldgr at March 17, 2009 01:34 PM

A woman who gets pregant, will incur - at the very least - the expense and risk of an abortion. Not to mention the emotional fallout, which can be both painful and long-lasting.

abortion is free...
unless your talking about car or bus fair, that is only sometimes reimbursed...

The cost of an abortion depends on the stage of pregnancy and which clinic is providing services. First trimester procedures run about $500-1000. Second trimester procedures cost $600-10,000. Many insurance plans cover abortion. In Washington, abortion is covered by the state medical assistance. State Medicaid coverage varies from state to state.

but if she decides to put it up for adoption she can be pampered by the new parents and no one has to tell the father.

Posted by: artfldgr at March 17, 2009 01:36 PM

And you all know I've been just as harsh with women.

It's too easy to prevent pregnancy these days for either sex to neglect basic precautions, and I have no sympathy for women who think that women's lib erased the laws of biology.

Mistakes do happen because people are human. But adults need to own their own deeds and as I pointed out to Yu-Ain earlier, even if a woman gets an abortion, she's hardly getting off scot free, whatever you think about abortion in general.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 01:38 PM

Few men understand what that's like. It's not a trivial responsibility.

for an untrivial thing, women do it all over to the tune of 50 million world wide each year (the population of italy) and 50 million since roe v wade..

a large percentage have more than one!!!

so if its so horrible, you would think that they would care not to have a second, third, fourth and fifth.

i knew one that has had 10 of them...

they use it as a form of cheap birth control

now that would make most women gasp, but women are not as homogeneous as they believe they are.

thats it for me...

now youc an all start shooting. :)

Posted by: artfldgr at March 17, 2009 01:38 PM

I've known women who had abortions, art.

Not one was "free", and yes some women have repeated abortions. Others have just one and are haunted by the experience for the rest of their lives, or even are left with complications.

You need to stop with the jihad against women. They're not any worse - or better - than men.

There are crazy and irresponsible women.

There are crazy and irresponsible men.

The laws you cite, though you may not like them, came about because of REAL problems. So you may care to direct some of your ire at your fellow men.

I know you all just love to attribute all the evil in the world to women, but it takes two to tango and for every story you cite of some man done wrong, I can cite a story about some female victim.

The bottom line is: if you want to be safe, choose wisely, restrain yourself, and get married. Don't treat sex like a game and you're a lot less likely to get burned.

There are plenty of decent, kind, moral women in the world. I know a lot of them, and a lot of them can't get a date. But if a man consistently choose to entagle himself with women who are hosers, it's hard to see any daylight between men and women who consistently fall for men who abuse them.

So, start shooting :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 01:47 PM

Dang :p

I love a good argument (so long as no one goes away mad).

Look art, there are women who get serial abortions.

I've known men who have 4, 5, 6 children - all by different women - and are supporting NONE of them.

What's the difference? (other than the fact that the woman dealt head on with the problem and the man walked away scot free?) :p

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 01:50 PM

I'm certain that there are many women who are not receiving Child Support Payments. But I also know that CS is a debt for which failure to pay you may put you in jail (contempt of court). And that this debt continues to accrue while there.

So, you fail to pay and you go to jail.
But while you're in jail you *can't* pay, and so get more jail time. Which means even more debt you can't pay, and so get even more jail time. Which means you still can't pay...

I'd hardly say that this let's the man off "scot-free".

While most women would be foolish to pursue to this end (they'd be guaranteeing non-payment), for a woman who believes he won't pay anyway, it is an option.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 02:31 PM

"The bottom line is: if you want to be safe, choose wisely, restrain yourself, and get married. Don't treat sex like a game and you're a lot less likely to get burned."

Stop that!
Stop that!!
You're making waay too much sense. It's time for something completely different.
Oh, wait, that wasn't any different.....
And now for something completely different.....

*snnnicker*

Posted by: DL Sly at March 17, 2009 02:39 PM

I'd hardly say that this let's the man off "scot-free".

1. I specifically said, "unless the woman takes him to court, he gets off scot free", Yu-Ain:

The fact of the matter is, men can (unless the woman goes to court) just walk away from an unintended pregnancy scot free. That's not an option *any* woman has.

2. From an article *in support* of deadbeat Dads:

Non-payment of child support is a significant problem in the United States. According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears.

That's almost 70 percent, Yu-Ain.

Not half. But 70 percent.

It's always easy to cite the sensational anecdote, but you of all people should understand that sensational anecdotes are a convenient way to distort the reality of a situation. What 70% tells me is that default is the norm.

Oddly, I don't hear anyone here at VC railing about Dads who don't support their kids. Why is that?

Posted by: Men in Tights at March 17, 2009 02:46 PM

art,
Even if the costs are covered, there is still the medical risks involved with pregnancy, delivery or an abortion.

I friend of mine's wife suffered from a pregnancy induced condition that almost killed her. Of course, they didn't know about it until after she was pregnant. Abortion was abhorent, but even if she had availed herself of abandonment laws, etc. She would not have been "consequence-free". It's one of the reasons I specified "legal" in my first comment.

The other is that those men who have walked away, as Cass put it, "scot-free" have not done so legally and with the blessings of the courts and gov't.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 02:50 PM

Part of the reason that I don't harp on the stastistic is I also happen to know something about how it's calculated.

The courts are notorious for ignoring the realities of the situations. Child support payments that are 50% of income *before taxes* are simply not payable regardless of the father's desire to do so. Father's who get laid off (read: not quit) and have to find work at lower pay will not have their CS payment lowered. And here's the biggie: How many of those 70% are to fathers who are or have been in jail whereupon payments *can't* be made?

I view it much the same way I view the canard that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to hurt a family member. When your data contains things like suicide and gang executions, it's not really a generalizable measure of "Accidental gun deaths".

There are too many other factors contributing to that statistic to make it meaningful.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 03:22 PM

Oddly, I don't hear anyone here at VC railing about Dads who don't support their kids. Why is that?

For the same reason we don't rail against people who commit murder? We all already agree it's wrong?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 03:24 PM

We all agree that it's wrong for women to act the way art described, too.

Posted by: Men in Tights at March 17, 2009 03:30 PM

I don't agree. There are plenty of people who view the termination of the mothers legal responsibilities (by abortion or abandonment at "safe-houses") as no more right or wrong than wearing blue on St. Paddy's Day.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 03:47 PM

For Example: when was the last time you heard of a deadbeat mom when the dad had full custody?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 03:48 PM

...and yet it comes up over and over and over again :p

I rarely if ever write about men who don't fulfill their responsibilities, Yu-Ain. I only started doing so b/c I began to get pissed off by the constant bashing of women here at VC.

The vast majority of posts I've written on this subject have featured irresponsible *women*, not men. And yet there are LOTS of irresponsible men out there, too.

So I don't need to be reminded that women can be irresponsible jerks. I write about that all the time. And I don't rub it in that some MEN are irresponsible jerks b/c frankly, that's the stereotype :p

I've always maintained that moral responsibility cuts both ways. All I am asking (and you are not necessarily violating this) is for a little sanity and perspective. I don't really think anyone here at VC needs persuading that women need to be responsible.

It's preaching to the choir - in all the time I've written I don't think I've EVER heard a commenter seriously maintain otherwise. I *have* heard many commenters maintain men shouldn't have to do the right thing b/c some women don't.

I don't believe two wrongs make a right. I think men are generally more responsible than perceived and women, less. But given the respective starting points, that kind of leaves us in the middle, doesn't it?

I don't understand the angst, here. I'm not the enemy and I'm not attacking men. Just saying they have responsibilities, just like women do.

I think that's fair.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 03:52 PM

There are plenty of people who view the termination of the mothers legal responsibilities (by abortion or abandonment at "safe-houses") as no more right or wrong than wearing blue on St. Paddy's Day.

Here? When have you heard that?

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 03:53 PM

And by the way, I think that 70% number is too high. Don't have time now to research it though.

It just sounds "off" to me.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 03:58 PM

And actually, now that I think of it a long time ago Grim and I had an argument about holding women responsible for their actions.

As I recall, he argued against it and I argued that women deserve no special treatment when they screw up. I think that is the exception to the rule here, though.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 04:10 PM

Not here, but from N.O.W. and N.A.R.A.L. For all intents and purposes an abortion is no difference to The Pill to them. More specifically, I have at least one family member that I am aware of who holds such a view.

Generally, if pretty much everyone agreed that abortion was wrong it wouldn't be legal up until the baby had exited the birth canal. I can understand apathy to the "clump of cells" the size of a pinhead. But to the 38-week gestational "fetus" who is only 3-4 inches away from no longer being legally "a clump of cells" anymore?

I'm sorry, no society which would see this as universally wrong could allow such an act to be legal.

*Full disclaimer: My wife will be 38 weeks on Friday.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 04:20 PM

*Full disclaimer: My wife will be 38 weeks on Friday.

There is no better feeling than expecting a baby. Except maybe having one. I loved being pregnant. I don't think I ever felt so beautiful, even though my poor belly was pretty big compared to the rest of me ;p

Congratulations!

And I agree with you on the abortion thing, but then you knew that. It's just that I've seen in my own life how rarely it is that men are confronted with the same responsibilities in regards to children.

I think most men feel a responsibility to support their kids. I just don't see a default assumption that making sure someone responsible is watching the baby is ever their "job", even when the wife works. You'll hear guys say (a lot) "I have to babysit". But you don't babysit your own baby.

Likewise, as stated before, I dont' believe many women truly understand the burden of feeling like the provider. Women tend to view that as either the man's job or a shared responsibility. But many men (I know my husband is one) view it as *their* responsibility.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 04:29 PM

I meant to add, "and that's a big difference from merely working".

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 04:30 PM

Congrats YAG & YAGette!

Interesting discussion.

As for me, if I do not see a need to defend Rush, I certainly do not see a need to defend any of the characters/bad actors portrayed here, real or imagined. I suppose that I'm just an equal opportunity, regardless of their gender, guarantor of a proclamation to issue a POX on all their houses.

Do the right thing might be trite, but I think most folks know it when they see it. Whether or not they will admit it is something else altogether.

Posted by: bthun at March 17, 2009 04:55 PM

Thanks, the LG has had a great time with the pregnancy. She's never had morning sickness or any major GI issues normall attendent to having your intestines squeezed. Sure, she can't eat much at any sitting and has to eat much more frequently, but I think she secretly likes it (more variety). It's only been the last week that her feet have started to swell and she's a little miffed she has a harder time wearing her 4" high heels. :-)

But the "having to babysit" deal is probably just the other half of "having to provide". Just as watching the baby isn't seen as his "job", neither is providing often seen as her "job". And as un-PC as it sounds, there's probably a good reason the vast majority of societies have hewn to this model of the nuclear family. But the real test is whether this view persists in Stay-at-home-Dad households.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 05:30 PM

But to my real issue. You are right, I do know well your views on partial-birth abortion. Which is why I used it.

Yes, the woman who has one will be scorned by some people. But there are others who would view her as a unenviable creature forced to make a no-win decision and in need of our emotional support. Then there are still some others who would argue "What's your problem, It's her body. She can do what she wants". And yet others who would applaud her for overcoming the oppression of a patriachal society determined to keep her barefoot and pregnant.

But the man who doesn't do anything near so extreme as to kill a child but simply fails to open his wallet to the sufficiency of Nightline editors is held up to the world to heap scorn and shame upon his head. Does it matter if he got hit by an uninsured drunk driver and was out of work for 12 months with no long term care insurance? Not to them: Tough sh17, pay up deadbeat.

Surely this shows that our society does not universally condemn a mother who "walks away" from the pregnancy like they do men.

By which I do not mean that I think the men are being treated necessarily unfairly. Yes, there are one-off cases with mitigating circumstances (such as the one I describe) that are the exception. Rather, I think men should be riduculed and shamed when they make a choice to walk away from the kids they helped create. I just think that it should be the same for the women.

And that's where I think a lot of the "I shouldn't have to do the right thing because she didn't" comes from. It's a play on the old what's good for the goose argument: If it *ain't* good for the goose, then why is it good for the gander.

It's very similar to the rhetoric device you used a couple months back by switching the genders on a "how to have a happy marriage" peice. If the argument doesn't hold water when the genders are reversed, then you're likely supporting a bad idea.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 05:48 PM

Well, I think it's kind of hard to argue that expecting a man who doesn't want kids to use birth control is a bad idea :p

That argument holds true for both sexes.

And as far as geese and ganders go, that's a fine sophistry but here we also have a gosling to consider :p

I think men should be riduculed and shamed when they make a choice to walk away from the kids they helped create. I just think that it should be the same for the women.

I think you're confusing what some people think with what MOST people think. Most folks judge a mother far more harshly for not being maternal (b/c they see this as unnatural) than they do a father for not wanting kids (which they see as far more understandable).

Posted by: Cassandra at March 17, 2009 06:11 PM

True, but what we want is only material *before* the bun is in the oven.

Afterwords, the mother isn't judged near as harshly for having an abortion as the dad is for not opening his wallet.

Call me weird, but it seems the former is the more extreme action.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 17, 2009 06:52 PM

As much as I hate bumper sticker wisdom, I saw this on some woman's car.

Your body may be a temple, but mine's an amusement park.

This pretty much sums up the attitude on both sides. When a woman offers her body as an amusement park, she shouldn't be surprised when a man want to take a ride, get off and go about his business.

If you're a man and you ride the ride, don't cry and whine when the roller coaster jumps the tracks.

Posted by: Tony at March 18, 2009 03:03 PM

Amen, Tony.

Amen.

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at March 18, 2009 03:26 PM

Afterwords, the mother isn't judged near as harshly for having an abortion as the dad is for not opening his wallet.

Legally? No doubt.

Socially? I'm not so sure. I think that depends greatly on the company one finds oneself in.

I am reading a good book right now. It does a very good job of explaining why we tend to let women off the hook on certain things (as indeed we do irresponsible behavior in men depending on the context). Maybe later I'll run the theory by y'all.

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at March 18, 2009 03:28 PM

Even socially.

Now the distribution of opinion may be wider. Some consider the abortive mother a murderer, some consider her pitiable, some say we should be empathetic with a woman having to make a difficult choice, some would be apathetic, and some who be supportive of the decision and yet others would consider her "liberated".

A man won't face the insults of being called a murdered, but he won't hear the "It's OK, you made the right choice" affirmation either.

The best he can hope for is empathy *if and only if* the amount he is paying is overburdensome, but never that he should not do absolutely everything he can.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 18, 2009 04:00 PM

In any case, I view the legal side of things as seperate from the moral. And that we ought not to be using the law to correct moral failings.

If __A__ has a legal right to terminate all legal responsibility (vice moral, which __A__ will never be rid of) for a pregnancy, then __B__ should also have a legal right to terminate all legal responsibility (vice moral, which __B__ will never be rid of) for a pregnancy.

If it is not right that __B__ should have a legal right to terminate all legal responsibility for a pregnancy, then it is also not right that __A__ should have a legal right to terminate all legal responsibility for a pregnancy.

I prefer the latter statement whether A = Women and B = Men or vice versa.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 18, 2009 05:01 PM

Meanwhile A & B have been busy.

Pay no attention to the 40% of C who will be born out of wedlock. The nuclear family is so 1950's.

*Old Curmudgeon shakes head and turns to go back to his trench*

Posted by: bt_GrandPooBah-of-the-VastGeezerConspiracy_hun at March 18, 2009 07:09 PM

Given how long you've been working on that *trench*, bt, I'd say it's time for full disclosure........you're digging a moat. Got the gators on back order, I presume.....
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at March 19, 2009 11:09 AM

Gators! H$!! no... Nothing but Bulldogs in this trench. =8^}

Posted by: bthun at March 19, 2009 11:31 AM

I figured that'd rouse ya.
*snnnicker*
You can put down the e-tool, now. You've got the darn thing so deep them dawgs can't even be ankle biters.

Posted by: DL Sly at March 19, 2009 12:26 PM

The laws you cite, though you may not like them, came about because of REAL problems.

not really... they came about by throwing all the good men in the pile with bad men...

so this constitutional lawyer and her freinds did that...

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

and they did it to do the same thing in a different way in how it was done in russia..

they ADMIT it, even if you dont BELIEVE it

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

robin morgan, simone de bouvier, and Catherine McKinnon know more about why they did and do what they do than their useful idiot followers do.

and i dont have a jihad agasint women..

you didnt learn from the bush left right obama name games did you?

shaming language to stop discussion is what they do... the view is a show based entirely on that.. .

and as for abortion, and why, why dont we ask or listen to the woman taht created planned parenthood?

"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race, (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
.
"Birth control: to create a race of thoroughbreds." -- Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, November 1921, (vol. V, no. 11); p.2.
.
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief aim of birth control." -- Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, May 1919 (vol. III, no. 5); p.12.
.
"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." -- Margaret Sanger, letter to Clarence Gamble, Dec. 10,1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College. (Dec. 10 is the correct date of the letter. There is a different date circulated, e.g. Oct. 19, 1939; but Dec. 10 is the correct date of Ms Sanger's letter to Mr. Gamble.)


care to hear what hitler said after his people wrote her people for advice on his eugenics programs?

planned parenthood was originally called the negro project and its original (and current intent if you listen to those investigatign it!! i wil see if i can find the you tube links of the recordings of the stuff so you can hear it yourself), purpose was extermination of the dysgenics in the race.

i dont have a jihad against women...

read what the Concerned women of america say..
or are they too part of the jihad against women?

The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans 5/1/2001
By Tanya L. Green
www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1466&department=CWA&categoryid=life

The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What's more shocking is Sanger's beguilement of black America's crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.


The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

Malthusian Eugenics
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.


Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus' magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:


All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.4

Malthus' disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated—or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.5


Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.6


Despite the falsehoods of Malthus' overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger's publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Rudin.7 Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.


Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization's board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without exception.” And Planned Parenthood's international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.8


The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area—those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.9


Sanger's early writings clearly reflected Malthus' influence. She writes:


Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.10

In another passage, she decries the burden of “human waste” on society:


It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11

She concluded,


The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression.12

The Review printed an excerpt of an address Sanger gave in 1926. In it she said:


It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.13

Sanger said a “bonus” would be “wise and profitable” and “the salvation of American civilization.”14 She presented her ideas to Mr. C. Harold Smith (of the New York Evening World) on “the welfare committee” in New York City. She said, “people must be helped to help themselves.” Any plan or program that would make them “dependent upon doles and charities” is “paternalistic” and would not be “of any permanent value.” She included an essay (what she called a “program of public welfare,”) entitled “We Must Breed a Race of Thoroughbreds.”15


In it she argued that birth control clinics, or bureaus, should be established “in which men and women will be taught the science of parenthood and the science of breeding.” For this was the way “to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime ... since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds [emphasis added].”16


Her program called for women to receive birth control advice in various situations, including where:


the woman or man had a “transmissible” disease such as insanity, feeble-mindedness, epilepsy, syphilis, etc.;
the children already born were “subnormal or feeble-minded”;
the father's wages were “inadequate ... to provide for more children.”


Sanger said “such a plan would ... reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry.”17


Sanger had openly embraced Malthusian eugenics, and it shaped her actions in the ensuing years.

The Harlem Clinic

In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL's perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this “experimental clinic,” which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business.18 In addition to being thought of as “inferior” and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic's own files used to justify its “work,” blacks in Harlem:


were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York's black population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
comprised 12 percent of New York City's population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City's unemployment;
had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
had a death rate from tuberculosis—237 per 100,000—that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.19


Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it “was established for the benefit of the colored people.” Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois,20 one of the day's most influential blacks. A sociologist and author, he helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to improve the living conditions of black Americans.


That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the “benefits” of birth control, under the cloak of “better health” (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and “family planning.” So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau.21 The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament.


Sanger shrewdly used the influence of prominent blacks to reach the masses with this message. She invited DuBois and a host of Harlem's leading blacks, including physicians, social workers, ministers and journalists, to form an advisory council to help direct the clinic “so that our work in birth control will be a constructive force in the community.”22 She knew the importance of having black professionals on the advisory board and in the clinic; she knew blacks would instinctively suspect whites of wanting to decrease their numbers. She would later use this knowledge to implement the Negro Project.


Sanger convinced the community so well that Harlem's largest black church, the Abyssinian Baptist Church, held a mass meeting featuring Sanger as the speaker.23 But that event received criticism. At least one “very prominent minister of a denomination other than Baptist” spoke out against Sanger. Dr. Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of Abyssinian Baptist, “received adverse criticism” from the (unnamed) minister who was “surprised that he'd allow that awful woman in his church.”24


Grace Congregational Church hosted a debate on birth control. Proponents argued birth control was necessary to regulate births in proportion to the family's income; spacing births would help mothers recover physically and fathers financially; physically strong and mentally sound babies would result; and incidences of communicable diseases would decrease.


Opponents contended that as a minority group blacks needed to increase rather than decrease and that they needed an equal distribution of wealth to improve their status. In the end, the debate judges decided the proponents were more persuasive: Birth control would improve the status of blacks.25 Still, there were others who equated birth control with abortion and therefore considered it immoral.


Eventually, the Urban League took control of the clinic,26 an indication the black community had become ensnared in Sanger's labyrinth.

there is a lto more..

i have PERSONALLHY read her AUTOBIOGRAPHY..
and she would have been a better pairing for hitler than eva was.

Prior to 1939, Sanger's “outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches.”35 Her vision for “the reproductive practices of black Americans” expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.


Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled “Suggestions for the Negro Project,” in which he recognized that “black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot.” He suggested black leaders be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge.36 Yet Sanger's reply reflects Gamble's ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:


I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people.37

Another project director lamented:


I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with ... a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.38

Sanger knew blacks were a religious people—and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:


The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members [emphasis added].39

Sanger's cohorts within the BCFA sought to attract black leadership. They succeeded. The list of black leaders who made up BCFA's National Advisory Council reads like a “who's who” among black Americans. To name a few:40


Claude A. Barnett, director, Associated Negro Press, Chicago
Michael J. Bent, M.D., Meharry Medical School, Nashville
Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, president, National Council of Negro Women, Washington, D.C., special advisor to President Roosevelt on minority groups, and founder of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona Beach
Dr. Dorothy Boulding Ferebee, cum laude graduate of Tufts, president of Alpha Kappa Alpha (the nation's oldest black sorority), Washington, D.C.
Charles S. Johnson, president, Fisk University, Nashville
Eugene Kinckle Jones, executive secretary, National Urban League, New York
Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor, Abyssinian Baptist Church, New York
Bishop David H. Sims, pastor, African Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia
Arthur Spingarn, president, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People


so i know history that you and others forgotten

do you know abotu rote zora?

they are a feminist terrorist group... the feminists side with terrostsit like islam because thats how they got started.

maybe reading the work of erin pizzy may wake you up

erin pizzy was the woman that started the first abuse center for BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, unlike today.

she was kicked out by lesbian communists, and had to feel to the US or lose her life!!!

the center she started that was the first in the world... does not bear her name!!!

unlike the eugenicist pizzy was not a communist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

i am on a jihad against propaganda that makes people side with others who DO NOT KNOW THE HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (née Carney, born 19 February 1939, China, daughter of a diplomat) is a British family care activist and a best-selling novelist. She became internationally famous for having started one of the first[1] Women's Refuges (called women's shelters in the U.S.) in the modern world in 1971.
-----

She began in the Goldhawk Road, Chiswick, West London where abused women were offered tea, sympathy and a place to stay for them and their children and later open a number of additional shelters despite hostility from the authorities. Pizzey's crucial pioneering work and determined campaigning was widely praised at the time. In 1975 MP Jack Ashley stated in the House of Commons that:

"The work of Mrs. Pizzey was pioneering work of the first order. It was she who first identified the problem, who first recognised the seriousness of the situation and who first did something practical by establishing the Chiswick aid centre. As a result of that magnificent pioneering work, the whole nation has now come to appreciate the significance of the problem".[2]

Erin Pizzey said that militant feminists - with the collusion of Labour's leading women - hijacked her cause and used it to try to demonise all men, not only in Britain, but internationally.[3] After the alleged hijacking the demand for a service for women survivors of domestic violence grew and soon public funding became available. Today the movement has been rebranded as Women's Aid and garners millions of pounds a year from a variety of sources although primarily from the state.

According to many webpages, Pizzey has said, or has been quoted as saying[4]: "Men are gentle, honest and straightforward. Women are convoluted, deceptive and dangerous." Pizzey said that most domestic violence is reciprocal, that means that both partners are equally violent towards each other, she reached this conclusion when she asked the women in her refuge about their violence and she concluded that most of the women were equally violent or more violent as their husbands. She has lamented that the movement she started had moved from the "personal to the political". This view has been supported by a variety of subsequent studies, including that by, Malcolm J. George of the Department of Physiology, Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, United Kingdom.[5]

In her book Prone to Violence (full text available online) Pizzey has propounded the theory that many of the women who took refuge had a personality such that they sought abusive relationships. The book contains numerous stories of disturbed families alongside a discussion of the reasons why the modern state care-taking agencies are largely ineffective (one extreme situation was when a woman in the refuge bit off a top of another woman's finger).

Some internet sources make the claim that Prone to Violence was suppressed by feminists (a search of all libraries in the world that could be accessed from the US Library of Congress through the Inter-Library Network in 1996 revealed a total of only thirteen listings worldwide), however there is no evidence to support the assertion. However the organisation Refuge was founded by Pizzey but her name is nowhere to be found on their extensive website - not even in the history section [1]

Pizzey says it was after death threats against her, her children, her grandchildren, and the killing of her dog, all of which she states were perpetrated by feminist activists [6],[7] that she left England for North America. She returned to London in the 1990s where her insights were sought by politicians and family pressure groups.

In March 2009, Pizzey reportedly declined to comment on the temporary withdrawal of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain following her complaint it had falsely linked her to The Angry Brigade, a group which staged bomb attacks in the early 1970s.[8][9]

and lastly...

here is waht florence nightingale said..

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

she had it out for them!! not i

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

Posted by: artfldgr at March 19, 2009 12:56 PM

here is a you tube recording of a person who posed as a racist donor, who wanted their donation to go to the extermination of a black child..

listen to the liberal woman at planned parenthood and let me know if she cares, hates it, or loves it...


Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation by UCLA Law Student
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=MiFOFUGIhFE&feature=related

Oklahoma: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9KttTuJ4ds&feature=related


Planned Parenthood Waco Conceals Statutory Rape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIz_ObG_tlo&feature=related


why are they helping statutory rape?

you say i am on a jihad..
and you are shaming me to protect peopel who are protecting older men who are having sex with underage women!!!


listen to the interviews... listen to it.

while i may agree that there are real world reasons for such things as abortion..

i am not so dumb as to give them a blank check and not care or not research and not know their history..

and even worse, i will not defne them from my own ignorance of them..

while abortion may have a place...
the waythese people are doing it, there is no place for this kind fo thing.

Posted by: artfldgr at March 19, 2009 01:04 PM

VENT Undercover at Planned Parenthood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTHOgoGBUkw&feature=related

mrs malking discusses the double standard..

it was ok to do undercover to hit the military

but when rose did her thing... they find out that the planned parenthood was advising the 15 year old... "just figure out a birthday that works, and i dont know anything"

this and there are others.
and their history..
and pizzey.

this is the FACTS..

and they ahve nothing to do with the issue of abortion in and of itself.

and i see that distinction..

so perhaps i am not a jihadi against women
but against women who hurt women and destroy lives for a political agenda they support but do not reveal to these very young girls, and others.

Posted by: artfldgr at March 19, 2009 01:09 PM

art, disagreeing with you is not "shaming", and considering you're commenting on my site, paid for with my money, it's a tad rich to say I'm trying to silence you.

Think about it.

The very fact that you fairly consistently bash not just SOME women but ALL women is pretty telling:

here is waht florence nightingale said.. "Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

There are plenty of people (both male and female) who have said like things about men.

The difference between you and me is that I don't use ludicrous overgeneralizations to bash men.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 19, 2009 01:32 PM

In any case, whether true or not, I fail to see how the origins of planned parenthood and the abortion industry have anything at all to do with the discussion.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at March 19, 2009 02:00 PM

"Many of the women involved deliberately avoid birth control and have no intention of letting their unwitting bedfellow know this."

Posted by: pst314 at March 21, 2009 09:58 AM

I stand by my earlier statement.

It is just plain stupid and irresponsible for men to think they can sleep with women they haven't even bothered to get to know, and yet somehow magically "trust" them to prevent a pregnancy.

These are not the actions of adult, but of a spoiled child who thinks he "ought" to be able to do whatever he wants but not accept the consequences. Men as well as women need to grow up.

Yes, there's inherent "unfairness" in the fact that a woman can have an abortion or take the man to court to pay child support. But there's an inherent "unfairness" to the fact that it's the woman who gets pregnant, too. Neither getting an abortion nor having to take the father to court are pleasant things. The fact of the matter is that many men can and do impregnate women and walk away scot free.

A woman can never do that. She may not have to take responsibility to the extent that you desire, but she is ALWAYS, by mere fact of biology, going to have some unpleasant consequences.

If you don't want a kid, use birth control.

If you're a man sleeping with a woman you aren't married to and whose character you don't know, you are risking not only pregnancy but STDs if you don't use a condom. To pretend otherwise is just plain foolish.

Posted by: Loose Women lying in ponds at March 21, 2009 10:50 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)