Last year, my wife had an altercation with a feminist on that grand ol’ feminist platform Facebook. There was not much aggression or hostility in the comment my wife left for the feminist to find. Quite the opposite, actually.
A political party in Norway had opened for the possibility of allowing for so-called “paper abortions” for men. That is – the freedom to sign away any responsibility for a potential child within a certain time after a pregnancy has occurred. As most of us who have had our eyes opened to the world as the world actually is, not as it has been presented, will be aware: men have absolutely no reproductive rights.
The feminist in question shared the news-article about this, commenting that “This party must have been smoking their socks”. To which my wife replied that “I actually believe the sexes should have the same rights”.
Which is just about as tame and non-controversial a statement as could possibly be. After all, the fight for so-called gender-equality is the vague thing that is in vogue. It was neither reasonable nor non-controversial to the feminist in question, of course, whose patronizing and staring-down-my-nose-at-thee response was as arrogant as it was condescending.
“That’s good, Moiret’s wife, but let me tell you how this really works”. Which of course translates from feminist speech into the human tongue as “Equality for me, but none for thee”. Equal rights do not mean equal rights to a feminist. It means special rights and privileges to women. It also shows the view feminism holds of women who disagree with them; as stupid, incompetent and brainwashed by the nebulous and nefarious patriarchy… as someone who must be spoken to in the tender and condescending tones of someone educating a wayward child.
Following the comment left by my wife, two guys jumped in agreeing with her on the topic at hand. A big ol’ argument ensued, in which the feminist in question became more and more angry and upset, culminating in her becoming absolutely and completely irrational.
It was very interesting to behold, as every single so-called argument she spouted against the notion that men should be allowed a say in whether or not they want to be a parent was more or less a parroting of pro-life talking points, albeit with the sexes reversed.
Gems such as “People have to be aware that sex can lead to children, and men have to take responsibility for their children” does fall flat on its face when the same people argue that women should be allowed to abort their child whenever and wherever and at any point in the pregnancy.
Women should not be made to deal with the responsibility of their actions and choices, but men do. Not only do men have to deal with the consequences of their own actions and choices, but the actions and choices of the woman as well. He has no say either way. If she wants the child, she keeps it. If she does not want the child, she aborts it. It is completely irrelevant whether he wants to be a father or not, despite the child being a product of them both. This does not seem particularly fair or equal. If women get to decide whether or not they want to be a mother, men should get to decide whether or not they want to be a father. If women shall be allowed to terminate their pregnancy at will, men should be allowed to sign away their parental responsibilities at will. Her choice, her responsibility. Equal treatment means just that. And, oh, my, it is all for the good of the child, they say when the topic of paper-abortions are brought up – think of the child. The child needs a safe and secure upbringing, and so the father must contribute. At least financially.
Strange, then, that the ones who preach free abortions whenever a woman wants one do not consider the safety and security of the child when it comes to abortions. Terminating a pregnancy means killing the child. Not particularly safe and secure. Won’t somebody please think of the children?!?
Any woman that gets pregnant holds a ridiculous amount of power over the man whose child she is carrying, as she is the only one who has any say in what happens with the child. And this is fair enough, as things are – I would never advocate for forcing a woman to go through with either an abortion or a birth. If people in general were a bit more careful and thoughtful about who they fuck and how they fuck, however, this would not be that much of an issue. Which, I believe, allowing for paper-abortions for men would contribute to.
What I am advocating for is allowing men a say in whether or not they want to be a parent. The feminist platoon keep repeating the mantra of “Her Body, Her Choice”. Which is something that could be argued against with the simple, yet supposedly radical and misogynistic, notion that the foetus is not her body, it is its own body. See; that is the pro-life stance – that the foetus is a living human being, not solely an extension of the body of the mother. It is not about controlling the mother, it is about not killing the baby. Whether one agrees with this idea or not, that is what it boils down to. Not killing the baby.
The morality of abortions is not what I aim to ramble about here and now, however – that’ll be for another day and another ramble. I just thought it would be a good idea to point to the fact that the feminist counter-argument to the pro-life people is based on a misrepresentation of the pro-life people’s stance.
It is fairly interesting to see that the feminist horde consider grown women to be more deserving of protection than a child, whether that child is unborn or not. It is, after all, women and children first – not children and women… nor is it children and parents first, which would be a bit more sensible.
Personally, I am neither pro-life nor am I pro-choice, as such. I do not believe abortions should be illegal, as I fear that would inevitably lead to backyard abortions with severe possibilities for infection and death and what-not and what-have-yous. This is not a good thing. On the flipside, though, it could mean that people were a bit more careful and thoughtful about who, how, when and where they fuck. Accidents with birth control stuff do happen. Sometimes on purpose.
I do not believe abortions should be unregulated; that the state should just grant women free abortions up to the moment of birth. Because, like it or not, the foetus is a child, is a human being, that is deserving of life. It is a more complex and complicated issue than the feminist hive-mind chose to present it.
Ultimately, it is all about the unborn child.
Though, of course, to a selfish person it is only and ever about them. And feminism is a rather selfish ideology, as it is ultimately only about her, her, her, and everything – and everyone – else be damned.
This, I find, goes for quite a lot of the social justice-stuff as well; egotism and narcissism hidden behind altruism and compassion.
Anyhow; the argument went on and on, with my wife merely repeating what she had already said – really hammering the point home, as it were.
This did not compute to the feminist in question. She was completely unable to comprehend the fact that men are also human beings that ought to have a say in the direction their life takes. In her world, men exist solely to serve.
“Her body, her choice” could easily be countered with the argument “his wallet, his choice”, as we all know how child-support and custody and all that jazz works in these equality-obsessed societies of ours, where equality means favours to women and no consideration for men.
Women are the default custodial parents. Men need only pay up, having little say in this or in that. Which of course, is presented as a patriarchal trespass on women, viewing women as mothers and nothing but that and so and such and bladi-bladi-blah.
And this is interesting, considering the feminist battle against equally shared parenting rights. It is, after all, the feminist organizations that come protesting whenever a default 50/50 parenting in case of divorce or whatever is proposed and considered.
There are no concrete values and convictions as such, no need for internal consistency or intellectual consistency in the feminist ideology. It is, after all, not a monolith… except when it is a monolitht.
As long as anything can be presented as an attack on or an affront to women, it will be presented as such and used as an argument.
It does not matter if the very same feminist have stated the completely opposite previously. Nothing matters. Only the view that women are victims, men are perpetrators, women are wonderful, men are vicious, women can do everything men can do, except when they can’t, which is whenever a feminist decide that equality would be a burden to women. There are no bad tactics. Only bad targets. So inconsistencies and double-speech and self-contradictions are no problem as long as the battle can be won.
At the end of the argument, the ferociously frantic feminist in question was only able to counter the arguments presented her with a “Blah!”, before claiming that she was not angry and then promptly deleting the entire thread, gently wiping away all proof and evidence of her own imbecility and displays of childish temper-tantrum-throwing.
It is very interesting – and fairly cringe-worthy – to witness such absurdly immature behaviour from someone who is above the age of fifty, but there you have it.
It becomes very clear, whenever one argues with a feminist, that they have never once considered the male condition; that they have never once attempted to view the world from a perspective other than their own. That they have, in fact, been living within an ideological bubble, en echo-chamber, if you will, where their feminist ramblings have seldom – if ever – been challenged.
This movement, this ideology, claims to work on behalf of equality for all – including men. Feminism cares about men too, after all. This does not compute when it becomes self-evident through their words and deeds and actions that they never once consider men in any way but how they can be of service to women – or, more to the point – to feminism. A man is not a human being unto himself; he is a human doing unto her. Either acting for her, or acting upon her, with no say in this or in that. He is either a threat to a woman to be dismissed as such, or a tool for a woman to be used as such. To the eyes of feminism.
Particularly so where children are concerned.
Or, rather, where parenthood is concerned.
Where sex, sexuality, impregnation, conception and birth is concerned.
In recent years, there have been a very concerted effort to attack fathers; to downplay the importance of their contribution to the raising of children. One must be blind and ideologically brainwashed to not notice this.
The nuclear family must be dismantled, they say. For it is yet another tool used in the oppression of women.
That children really do need their fathers – and fathers really need their children – is of no importance to a movement that have decided that any male interference is a negative; that the only contribution he needs to make towards the raising of children is an economic one. He shall pay up and stay away, having no choice, say or sway in anything.
This is not only incredibly unfair. It is dehumanizing. It reduces the father to having no role to play in the life of his child but that of an absent provider; of a walking wallet. Which, of course and given time, is turned around and made to be his fault, thus gifting him the wonderful label of “dead-beat dad”.
Once again, the complexity of human nature is boiled down to “women good, men bad”. Feminism is fighting against equally shared parenting rights as well as the reproductive rights of men whilst at the same time claiming that men are at fault for this. Just as men are at fault for any pregnancy; reducing, in the process of doing so, the woman to nothing but a receptacle for his seed.
I have seen, time and again, feminists on twitter claim that any unwanted pregnancy is solely the fault and the responsibility of the man. After all: he is the one choosing to ejaculate in her.
And this idea makes sense, of course, when seen through the feminist framework. This framework is created in such a way as to say that – given the patriarchal nature of our societies, and the supposed oppression women suffer, and always have suffered, under the rule of men – women can never give meaningful sexual consent to men, thus rendering any sex had as not only being rape by definition, but also of being solely the responsibility of the man. Women are objects being acted upon by men, to the eyes of feminism, and so anything done to a woman by a man is the responsibility of the man. And this includes the woman getting pregnant by him. It is in the phrasing, in our common parlance: “He got her pregnant”. She did not get pregnant. They did not get pregnant. He got her pregnant. Not she, not they, but he.
I remember learning, in school, that the ancient Greeks believed that the sperm and only the sperm was what made a pregnancy possible. The body of the woman only received the sperm, as such contributing nothing but a vessel for the child to grow in. The feminist teacher presented this as being severely misogynistic, as one would expect. Not as a result of them simply not knowing better due to their limited knowledge as well as their limited ability to gather knowledge about the inner workings of the bodies, but as peak misogyny and hatred of women.
This is very interesting, considering that pregnancy is considered by a seemingly large part of the hive-mind to be the sole responsibility of the man, with the woman not contributing in any way, despite giving consent to sex and as such to the possibility of pregnancy. Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood. Unless one happens to be a man. Then it does.
As I learned when watching the aforementioned argument unfold: men have to be aware of the possibility of pregnancy and take responsibility should it happen. Women do not, as they shall have any-and-all possibility to opt out of parenthood. It is her body and so it is her choice. His body and his life is not his choice, and should she get pregnant he has to take responsibility.
Men have absolutely no reproductive rights. And very few options for protection. Vasectomy, condoms and abstinence are the only options available. Compare this to the plethora of options available to women, and one begins to wonder why the burden of responsibility for a woman’s pregnancy is placed solely in the lap and drained testicles of a man.
There was a case in Norway some time back where a man was tricked into parenthood by a one night stand. She claimed she was on the pill. She was not. She tricked him into impregnating her because she wanted to have a child. He went public with this, stating that he did not consent to parenthood. She lied about being on the pill, and got pregnant on purpose. And so he tried to sign away his parental responsibilities. To which he was met with severe hostility from most of society, stating – just as the aforementioned argumentative feminist did – that he had to be aware of the possibility of pregnancy when having sex.
Despite this being a case of the woman deceiving him.
Now, were I him I would have insisted on the use of a condom as well. I would not trust a stranger blindly, and so his own naivety – or stupidity – is to blame for that.
Yet, her blatantly lying to him and tricking him into impregnating her, furthermore to be financially responsible for a child he did not want is not to blame for that. He has to take responsibility for her deception, and she does not.
This is a terrifying state of things.
What irks me even more than this particular case, however, is that only a week after this case blowing up and this man being shamed and ridiculed and whatnot… I saw article after article popping up, stating that it was rape of the woman if a man removed the condom during sex without informing her… without her consent to do so.
This is absolutely un-fucking-believable.
This is the exact same thing, yet the treatment of it is the exact opposite. She lies about birth-control and this is his responsibility and not rape of the man. He lies about wearing a condom and this is his responsibility as well as being rape of the woman.
Following the same logic, her act ought to be considered rape as well and judgement be passed on her. But this did not happen, nor does it happen now.
Women, it seems, are very happy to place the burden of responsibility for their own actions on men.
And why should they not? They are free to do so under the law of the land.
- Please Like, Share and Subscribe
- Moiret Allegiere, 21.03.2020
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
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop