In the previous part of this ramble, I promised you a rather amusing anecdote. I might have told it before, but it is such a great story that I felt like re-telling it. Besides, it will be slightly more fleshed out and – hopefully – way more entertaining this time around.
It all happened in the long gone and far away year of 2018. A feminist woman in her 50’s shared a news article to Facebook wherein it was written that a certain political party in Norway considered allowing for men to sign away their rights and responsibilities in case of a pregnancy. So-called paper abortions.
She commented on this with: “(political party) must have been smoking their socks.”, no doubt a very lucid take on the topic, delivered with all the self-righteous smug arrogance one expects from a feminist who, more like than not, have spent most her time in an echo chamber, having nothing but nodding heads with that dim thousand-yard stare of learned compliance and helplessness surround her. Well formed arguments are immaterial; a cheap insult is more than enough when someone is so mean and wicked as to try and open up for men to actually have some reproductive rights. So they had, of course, smoked their socks for daring to propose measures be taken to implement some actual equal rights and equal treatment in that luscious law of ours.
My wife, always the fantastically feral muckraker, commented with the following simple statement: “I actually believe the sexes should be granted equal rights”, knowing full well the can of worms this would open.
The feminist in question responded with: “That is good, (name of my wife), but let me tell you how equality actually work”. Rather condescending, wouldn’t you say? Here’s this feminist, woman-splaining, cunt-plaining and fem-sulting my wife, all in one sentence. Behaviour that, were it to come from a man towards a woman, would be dismissed as that most horrible act of “mansplaining”, the man of course to be thoroughly shamed and dragged through the streets towards the laughing stock for daring to so condescendingly explain something to a woman.
However, when it comes from a (feminist) woman, it is quite alright as my poor wife quite clearly needed to unlearn the tyrannical, patriarchal and (most likely) white supremacist notion that equal treatment means equal treatment; that equality means equality… particularly before the law.
My wife, not missing a beat, responded with more-or-less the exact same comment she just posted: “I actually believe the sexes should be granted equal rights.” A couple of guys came to the defence of my wife, flabbergasting the feminist in question even more. People disagreeing with her and her hallowed feminist approach to equality (which of course translates into privileges, rights and superiority for women and women only)?
This was an absolute outrage!
This was not how people should behave.
People were supposed to agree, blindly and without question.
Especially women. Men, of course, don’t know any better on account of being men.
But women?
How very dare she – a woman – propose that, maybe, men have been given the short end of the stick? How dare she point out one of the many areas in which women are treated favourably, be that by society or by law? How dare she point out one of the many areas in which men are treated unfairly, be that by society or by law?
It was the wonderful voice of feminism, after all. ‘
Anyone who disagrees with it must, by definition, be a vicious woman-hating bastard. Or a woman with internalized misogyny; brainwashed into servitude and such by the awesome might and influence of the patriarchy.
A discussion commenced, in which the feminist got increasingly irate and irrational, throwing out arguments that one would be familiar with if one has but a passing knowledge of the pro-lifers and anti-abortionists and their arguments. Things like “One has to be aware that sex can lead to pregnancy”, “They can keep it in their pants” and “One has to take responsibility for ones actions”.
Of course, she was all for abortion for women. Even when the arguments she used could just as well be used against abortion for women. Responsibility and accountability is a male-only trait, apparently. At least through the fever of feminist fancy. Cognitive dissonance, double standards, mental gymnastics and similar remains a predominantly feminist trait.
The guys, and my wife, kept discussing with this feminist, who in the end simply responded with the incredibly well-thought out and considered argument: “Blah!”.
A brilliant, soul-crushing argument, no doubt. There was no bouncing back from this. She was victorious; her opponents beat and bruised and bloodied, lay face-down on the battlefield of ideas… never to rise again.
The guys asked if she was, perhaps, a bit annoyed… a wee bit irritated… angry, even.
My wife just repeated what she had already said, stating yet again: “I actually believe the sexes should be treated equally”. An attempt to bring the point home, obviously.
The feminist replied that she was neither irate nor angry, neither annoyed or antagonised, thank you very much, she was just tired of discussion.
She then proceeded to promptly delete the entire thread, wiping away any and all evidence that she had made a complete and utter fool of herself. Her arguments did not stand up to scrutiny, nor were they thought through. This much was glaringly obvious, as she was completely incapable of arguing her case when met with actual arguments to the contrary of her conniving conviction. Insults flew and tantrums were thrown, but arguments were lacking. And when there were arguments to support her case, they were – as I just mentioned – nothing but well known pro-life arguments. Albeit with a focus on male responsibility.
Her reaction to both the article and the ensuing discussion was evidently an immediate and purely emotional reaction, with no thought or reason behind it. She was completely incapable of seeing that her arguments could just as easily, with the same rationale, be used against abortion for women. That they, in fact, are used against abortion for women.
Until, of course, it was pointed out to her, in part prompting the aforementioned brilliant argument of “Blah!”, and the subsequent deletion of the thread.
Immediate outrage is as immediate outrage does. Reason does not factor into it. Merely an immediate emotional reaction to a proposal that men should be, perhaps, granted reproductive rights similar or equal (within the limits of our different biologies, obviously) to those enjoyed by women. It is only fair, after all.
This proposal was reacted to by vile vitriol and calls for responsibility on part of men, from someone who supposedly champions a movement there to fight for equality between men and women, and the rest of the seven thousand genders that either exist or don’t exist, depending on what argument is needed to be made.
Where women have rights, where women demand rights, men have responsibilities. When men fight for these very same rights, women see no qualms in shaming them for their supposed irresponsible nature… even when championing women’s rights to free themselves of the very same responsibility which men need to take… which men have no choice in taking. Women want to have their cake, and eat it too.
Just remarkable.
And so the tale came to an end, with the feminist most likely not learning anything from the incident, except, perhaps, a strengthening of her core belief in the immaturity, immorality and irresponsibility of men; the wickedness of masculinities so evident in their wish for equal treatment of the sexes… as well as getting an even firmer belief in the obvious brainwashing the pestilent patriarchal society we live within subject its poor women to.
After all: a women holding her own opinions, contrary to feminist opinion, can not exist as anything but proof of patriarchal brainwashing and societal indoctrination into subservience and obedience to men, bastards as they all are.
Add to this some typical murmurs about my wife being reactionary, being a boot-licker of the patriarchy, a pernicious pick-me, wanting to go back to a time where her existence could amount to nothing but (according to feminist revisionist history) being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen, etcetera, and you’ve got yourself a fantastic feminist filth-sandwich to rival all other phenomenal filth-sandwiches. Women are strong, free, independent and must be listened to no matter what they say. Unless they go against the feminist dogma. Then they may well be made subject to any scorn and ridicule. Why; then they are no better than mere men, scum of the earth as they so clearly are!
To make the claim that the men’s rights movement, scattered and rag-tag as it is, as a whole is a reactionary movement is a ridiculous claim. Particularly so when such a big chunk of it fight for men’s reproductive rights… a fight that is, in fact, both radical and progressive.
Or merely fighting for men’s bodily autonomy… a luxury which we do not have, from the moment of our birth, as long as male genital mutilation of infants remain legal, accepted and common. It does not matter whether any one man is a victim of male genital mutilation or not. As long as men live within a society in which it is not only legal, but also broadly accepted, men have no bodily autonomy, no ownership over their own bodies.
The lack of bodily autonomy; of self-ownership could easily be used as an argument in regards to men’s lack of reproductive rights as well. A man must pay child-support, whether he wanted the baby or not. He must alter his life based upon a woman’s choice, no matter his wishes.
With his body, then, he does the labour needed to earn the money needed to pay the child-support. His body, his life, his future are all things over which he has no control in this – and many other – circumstances. These are all domains over which women and the state hold sway. This is an incredible amount of power for anyone to hold over anyone.
Speaking up about it, protesting it and objecting to it as a man, does little but open oneself up for shame and for ridicule; being called selfish and egotistical, irresponsible and whatever else… shaming that is considered a grave injustice, if thrown towards a woman opting for abortion. Despite it being very much the same thing – not wanting to take responsibility for a child that – more often than not – is the result of ones own choices and actions, thus choosing not to do so.
Only one party has that choice. Only one party has the power to force the other into parenthood. Remarkable, is it not? One can not force a woman into anything; be that an individual or the state or the government. That would be discrimination, that would be sexism, that would be misogyny, that would be horrible. Men, on the other hand, can be forced into whatever and asked to accept, not object, not protest… merely to take this duty, to take this responsibility alongside all the other duties and responsibilities, and carry on living with one foot firmly in the grave already.
Now, I can obviously not disagree with the fact that one has to be aware that sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy. This is a true statement. There is no denying that.
With the plethora of options available for women, both pre-and-post-conception, however, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that the “accidental pregnancies” often are planned “accidents”.
“Happy little accidents” happen more often than we think, I believe, through trickery and deceit. And in that case, women have all the rights and men have none. A man may be “baby-trapped”, and there’s not a damned thing he can do about it. He has no self-ownership, no course of action… only sexual abstinence or suicide.
The major part of the discussion regarding abortion – if we were to have an honest discussion, not one fuelled by feminist egotism and rhetorical trickery – should centre around when a foetus is to be considered alive. Some say at the moment of conception, others say a few weeks or months into its development. The pro-life stance has nothing to do with wanting to control women’s bodies. It has to do with believing that the foetus is a live human being, even in the womb, even early in the pregnancy. Logic then dictates abortions to be murder of a child. It follows that life, any life, should not be ended willy-nilly.
The pro-choice stance, the feminist stance, is more often than not an argument from selfishness: women’s ownership of their bodies and their lives, and thus their right to decide what happens with that body and that life… As well as the body and life of a man. But who cares about them, right? They should be aware of the possibilities for pregnancy. Like – how stupid are men, really, to not be aware that fucking can lead to pregnancy? Sigh and harumph.
A major flaw in the typical feminist, pro-choice argument arises when one comes to the (to my eyes) inevitable conclusion that the foetus is its own body, its own person, existing as more than merely an extension of the mother’s body. Not to mention – as touched upon in part one… repetition is a fairly decent way of hammering the point home – that the foetus is also built from the body of the father. He provides sperm, thus rendering the foetus a part of his genetic material, of his body; a marvellously engineered and – I would even dare state – miraculous creation of them both… a fantastic product of male and female co-operation, if ever I saw one. The father’s contribution matters remarkably little to the eyes of feminism, society, the government, the state and the law, excepting when it does… when is when he has to understand that sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy. In other words: when he has to take responsibility for his (and hers) actions.
To the feminist mind; to the pro-choice mind, the growing baby is nothing but a clump of cells.
To my mind, this is a rather disturbing mindset.
A “parasite”, I have heard it referred to by some.
To my mind, this is a completely disturbing mindset.
Luckily, it does not seem to be a mainstream view of the thing.
I have come to the realization, after reading and watching discussions and debates on pregnancies and abortions and such, (being the anti-social observer that I so obviously am, I am fond of reading and watching debates and discussions… not in taking part), that whether or not the foetus is nothing but a clump of cells; whether the foetus is a growing and living baby, a human being, or not, depends on one thing.
That one thing is a simple one.
It depends on whether the woman wanted it or not. If she wanted it, it is a growing baby with life and potential and a future and what have you. If the woman didn’t want it, it is nothing but a clump of cells.
Pro-choicers would not grieve if experiencing a miscarriage, if it was nothing but a clump of cells. Were the foetus merely a clump of cells, a miscarriage would not be worthy of any amount of grief.
Once again, I can only reach the conclusion that the opinion of the thing depends on what is needed in the moment, not on any fixed, any constant values.
Thus, it appears to me to be a fickle and emotional thing. In other words: what feels right there and then, not this, not that, but both of them, depending on the mood at the time.
To make one thing perfectly clear: This is not an attack on pro-choicers as individuals. Not as such. They are free to have and to voice their opinions. As we all should be. What bothers me is the dishonesty of the argument, painting it as being about a woman’s ownership of her body when it so obviously is not.
Proof, perhaps, that our society cares more for women than we do for children, even babies?
Let me also state this: this is not to take anything away from the grief experienced by either parent due to miscarriage. Miscarriages, I know from personal experience, are gruesome affairs… not to be taken lightly.
I have no doubt that any expecting parent, whether pro-life or pro-choice, whether expectant mother or father, will feel this loss as something real and something significant, something substantial, and as such will grieve this loss as any parent would grieve the loss of their child.
I know this grief excruciatingly well, having experienced it myself, twice, not all that long ago. But more on that next time, for the final part of this ramble. Suffice it to repeat that I do not doubt the sincerity of their grief at all.
Still, I can not help but find it fascinating that a foetus is a clump of cells or a living human being, depending on whether or not it is wanted. Schrödinger’s baby is alive or not alive, depending on circumstance. Anything, I suppose, to distance oneself from the knowledge of what an abortion actually is; anything to remove the burden of knowing what one is about to do, or what one just did.
As is the case with the treatment of boys and men in our society, it seems that it is preferable to turn a blind eye and enter a state of denial so as not to look at the facts of the matter. If this society of ours was to take a clear and lucid look at the state of things, it would be ashamed of itself.
Things would have to be re-evaluated one after the other.
Behaviours and institutions; entire systems would have to be changed and a whole host of people would have to take a long, good and hard look at themselves, their behaviour and their treatment of other people, be that treatment undeservedly benign or undeservedly wicked… they would have to re-evaluate their way of navigating the world. This is something I find most people have a hard time doing. Introspection is not in vogue, even when calls for it (mainly on the part of men) are.
And so it is easier to not look at it, easier to deny, easier to be wilfully blind to the facts than it is to look at the facts as the facts are.
And that, my friends, is fact. At least according to my magnificent beard, and the little man that lives within it.
That concludes this section of the ramble. Please join me next week for the conclusion.
- Please like, share and subscribe
- Moiret Allegiere, 05.12.2020
Feminism: The breakfast of champions:
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M8DGN9S
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MBZMZN2
My Generation Killed Rock «n» Roll:
Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089DHKBQB
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089M59JXF
Lonely Trainstation Blues – Poetry for the Lost Boys, Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZB6K2JX
Lonely Trainstation Blues – Poetry for the Lost Boys, Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1692495518
Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078
Other links:
Parler.com: @MoiretAllegiere
Blog: https://moiretallegiere.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3IaCxAXE3pQd7PCdvHoaaA
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/EvbGZyTZSraY/
twatter: https://twitter.com/MAllegiere
Gab: https://gab.com/Moiret_Allegiere
Minds: https://www.minds.com/Moiret
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/people/152465815@N04/