Let’s talk some more about rape.

2 Jul

Every time I write about rape people freak out. I can honestly say that, as much time as I’ve spent thinking about rape and how to stop it, I never realized that rape was such a controversial subject (at least in the way I’ve come to discover). I never knew there were so many rape apologists (MRAs, regular dudes, even women) that would come over here and give me a bunch of shit for making the outrageous suggestion that we ought not to keep allowing rapes to go unpunished. I intended to show that our legal system doesn’t protect women from rape, but plenty of people missed that point, detoured by talk of castration and jettisoning the presumption of innocence. I see now that I should’ve written something much simpler and more obvious if I expected these 4Chan types to understand me.

Fine, then. Some people need a Fox News-style Outrage!(TM) in order to get a point, and I’ll deliver. In the lovely state of Kansas, where they still have analog gas pump readouts that only go up to $25, a 14-year-old girl has been raped. She was hanging out with three of her friends when two of them left the room and the third, a 13-year-old boy, raped her. She tried to deal with the situation on her own, but decided after about a month to tell a school counselor about it. The counselor told the cops, and guess what happened? The GIRL has been charged with “rape” and “criminal sodomy.” The age of consent in Kansas is 16 (yikes), but the state also has a law similar to that in California under which sex with someone under 14 is taken to be a more serious crime.

I don’t think I’d argue with the idea that someone who has sex with a child under 14 ought to face a stiffer penalty than an 18-year-old having consensual sex with a 16-year-old, but what the fuck? That isn’t what’s going on here. A 14-year-old girl goes to see her school counselor for help after having been raped, and SHE gets in trouble? There’s been no mention made of the boy having been charged with anything. I am assuming that the boy was charged and then denied that he raped the girl, claiming that the sex was consensual, which is to be expected, but is this prosecutor out of his fucking mind? The kid can mount a defense and can claim whatever he wants, but the idea that the prosecutor would charge a rape victim with a crime as a response to that defense is pretty fucking weird.

I know some of the Tom Leykis types will argue that maybe she did consent and only decided to call it rape once she felt some regret over the whole thing, but whatever. We have no way of ever knowing that, which I suppose means that the prosecutor can do little toward convicting the boy (remember that thing about the presumption of innocence working in favor of rapists and against victims?). But what is the value in charging the girl? The boy, according to all I’ve read about the story, has made no claim to having been forced or coerced into anything. While it may be true that the idea of consent by either of these two at such a young age is a bit of a joke, that doesn’t seem to have dampened the prosecutor’s enthusiasm for charging this girl with a crime that implies she took advantage of someone too young to consent, even though she’s only a few months older than he is. He has effectively chosen to ignore a forcible rape and to prosecute the victim for taking advantage of her rapist. Oh, the beauty of the American legal system.

What does this story say to the people who’ve heard about it (which includes every girl in the area it took place in, I’m sure)? First, it says that we have no idea how to deal with the issue of consent. When someone is under 16 in Kansas, they are unable to consent to sex, and so exist in a perpetual state of non-consent. All it takes for a rape to have been assumed to have occurred is the admission that intercourse took place. But that only applies if one of the participants was over 16. If they were both under 16, it’s all good. Unless, of course, one of them was under 14, in which case it’s not cool. Unless they’re both under 14. But if you step over the state line into Missouri, the age of consent goes up to 17. Apparently the kids in Kansas mature faster than those in Missouri. Good to know. The kids in California are immature as fuck, though, because they can’t consent until they’re 18. Schizophrenic, I know. But that’s not all. Once a person has reached whatever age of consent their state representatives have laid down, they go from a perpetual state of non-consent to a perpetual state of consent, meaning that once they pass 16, 17, or 18, they have to prove that they did not consent to a sex act in order for the person who forced them to submit to the act to be punished for doing so. Makes almost as much sense as Bush lyrics.

The second thing this case tells the girls of Kansas is that, if they ever get raped, they’d better think twice about reporting it to anyone, even if they need help dealing with the emotional effects of the attack. Rape victims everywhere already know that, if they report having been attacked, they’ll be called whores, be exposed to ridicule and slander, and be treated mercilessly in court, just in the hopes that their case will be one of the few cases that will be prosecuted or end in conviction. But now they’ve got the added fear of being charged with a crime if the prosecutor doesn’t like that they’ve reported having been assaulted. What the fuck is this, Afghanistan?

No wonder 60% of rapes go unreported. Even among those that are reported, only half of reported rapes lead to arrests, and of those, only 80% will be prosecuted. Of those that are prosecuted, only about half will result in conviction, with only 69% of those convicts getting any jail time. That means 16% of reported rapes end in jail time (and most sentences are pretty paltry), and that only 6% of rapists will ever see any jail time at all if we include unreported rapes. 15 in 16 rapists go free. What was the highest estimate for false rape claims? Like 7%? Suck on that, MRAs.

The third thing this law tells us is that our legal system is fucked. Not only do we have no way to determine consent and no method for convicting rapists, but we have no way to control prosecutorial bias. Here we have Ted Nugent prosecuting a case in which he’s decided, on his own, that the girl is lying and that she has victimized the boy. He’s clearly using his prosecutorial discretion and technicalities in the law to pursue some kind of agenda. (I wonder what kind of record he has when it comes to prosecuting rapes.) Rape victims are forced to reply on police, prosecutors, judges, and juries to take their claims seriously, to pursue their attackers, to prosecute them when they catch them, and to remove them from society in order to mitigate further damage. It’s too bad the people victims have to rely on aren’t very reliable when it comes to treating rape victims with dignity and respect, or even believing their stories.

The proverbial deck is proverbially stacked against rape victims. Victims are met with potential disbelief and disrespect at every stage of the process. The foundational concept of the presumption of innocence, coupled with prosecutorial, judicial, and juridical indifference to rape victims’ claims, has dumped us in a legal shitheap from which there doesn’t seem to be an escape. You may not agree that we should assume that defendants are guilty until they can prove otherwise, but you can’t claim that our current system protects women (or anyone, really) from rape. Deuce’s Law might be the only alternative. I’m just saying.


Bookmark and Share

89 Responses to “Let’s talk some more about rape.”

  1. Windstorm July 2, 2008 at 8:20 PM #

    I think “Deuce’s Law” is brilliant. And I loved what you said in that post: “Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them…” That’s it in a nutshell.

  2. Iain Hall July 2, 2008 at 9:11 PM #

    The problem with any accusation of rape is that it very often comes down to a “she said he said” dichotomy and just how can you get around that without destroying the fundamental foundations of the justice system. While a feminist hot head such as yourself seems very keen to sweep away such niceties as the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness (to the accused) just for one minute image the consequence for society if we did as you suggest….
    Did you get a picture of a system akin to the Taliban regime ? Because that is what I think of when I read the last few paragraphs above.
    The requirement that any accusation be proven, beyond reasonable doubt is the primary protection that we all have against a malicious and crapricious judicary and without it we are all in deep doo doos.

  3. Nine Deuce July 2, 2008 at 10:24 PM #

    Great, Iain’s back. I have rules here. If you wanna discuss something, do so with respect. Otherwise, piss off.

    I’m not a hot head. I write the way I do for effect, but I’ve thought about all of these issues a lot and don’t need some dude to come over here and tell me how to discuss them.

    I’m not “keen to sweep away such niceties as the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness” here. I’m keen to remedy a situation in which there IS NO procedural fairness for rape victims and in which the presumption of innocence means 15 of 16 rapists rape with impunity. HOW MANY TIMES TO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT?

    Deuce’s Law might be Taliban-esque, but so is the case I wrote about above, and so is a situation in which men are allowed to rape women and go unpunished. When the question is which system serves the greater good, the answer is that fewer people, statistically, would be harmed under Deuce’s Law than are under the current system. That is logically undeniable unless, of course, you think innocent men being harmed is worse than innocent women being harmed, which is the underlying assumption in the current legal system’s treatment of rape.

  4. Mortality July 2, 2008 at 10:34 PM #

    And people asked me why I never reported my rape.

    I think Deuce’s law is brilliant. That law would make it possible for my rapist to see jail time.

  5. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 12:36 AM #

    The problem with “Deuce’s Law” is it doesn’t improve anything. Unbalancing the legal system to strongly break everything it’s built on, and make it favor women, AND provide a stronger punishment for men who rape than for women…isn’t a helpful idea.

    Basing it on or around Twisty’s ideals just makes it doubly difficult to swallow. It’s an action that basically criminalizes het sex for male participants.

    You basically fill your entire law with “Men rape, and women never do anything bad”.

    Your section 3 is ridiculous, as well. Also falls under “cruel and unusual punishment”. As such, unconstitutional. If someone passes a lot of bad checks, we don’t tell them they can’t use money responsibly, therefore will never be allowed to have any.

    Your entire law isn’t a solution, it’s a terribly wrought perversion of everything our justice system is founded upon.

    It has nothing to do with “rape apologists” when people disagree with gross negligence and obvious misandry in your statements.

    Feminism is thumbs up, by me. Misandry is not.

  6. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 12:41 AM #

    Have you even seen any of the other comments on this post or on the Deuce’s Law post? You should read them before you continue to comment. I don’t particularly care if what I’ve suggested is a perversion of “our” justice system. “Our” justice system doesn’t work for women, which you’d know if you’d read what I said and thought about it.

    Which of my statements exhibit negligence or misandry? If you want to accuse me of either, back it up.

    Oh, and thanks for the thumbs up on feminism. I was really looking for your approval.

    Also, enough of the condescension. I think I’m about to institute a 2-strikes rule: if you insult me or my readers more than once, you’re banned.

  7. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 1:15 AM #

    “I don’t particularly care if what I’ve suggested is a perversion of “our” justice system. “Our” justice system doesn’t work for women, which you’d know if you’d read what I said and thought about it.”

    From what I can tell, you think it doesn’t work because 100% of men accused of rape are not in jail.

    “Which of my statements exhibit negligence or misandry? If you want to accuse me of either, back it up.”

    It’s negligent AND misandrist to include statements like:

    “That’s right. Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them, and will have to eschew high-pressure tactics, emotional and financial manipulation, as well as physical force if they want to avoid rape charges.”

    You’re assuming by your generalized language, that MEN are rapists, and there is no difference between “man” and “rapist”.

    You didn’t say “Rapists will have to learn…” You simply said “men”.

    That’s neglecting the fact that women rape (walking proof here, Hi!), and that not all men are rapists.

    That, and I’m sure you apparently like Twisty, but one would have to be very much selectively blind to not see that she hates men. So, referencing something she’s said is misandry by association.

    Her version of your exact law goes so far as to make certain that women are forever in a state of non-consent, and men are forever in a state of always-consent, and that women can NEVER commit the crime of rape.

    “Oh, and thanks for the thumbs up on feminism. I was really looking for your approval.”

    Way to miss the point. But thanks.

    “Also, enough of the condescension. I think I’m about to institute a 2-strikes rule: if you insult me or my readers more than once, you’re banned.”

    But it’s perfectly alright for you to insult people. Respect is a two way street. You can’t demand it without giving it.

  8. Claire July 3, 2008 at 1:20 AM #

    Black Thirteen –

    Deuce’s law, which I find extreme but nonetheless awesome, doesn’t improve the situation for men, certainly. But you see, that’s precisely the point. Men (white heterosexual men, in particular) don’t need their situation improved. Women (of color and queer, in particular), however, *do*. We have been choking under your (legal, in this case) self-serving agenda long enough. We have been and are being hurt by it, damaged by it. Raped by it, in the most direct sense. Sometimes permanently. *We* need the pendulum to swing in *our* favor, for once.

    I do agree that Deuce’s law would effectively criminalize most sex for heterosexual men. Which, again, is precisely the point…as much of what passes for ‘consent’ as far as heterosexual sex is concerned is in at best a gray area and at worst an exercise in pure unfiltered woman-hatred. In other words, RAPE.

    I do suspect many men who read this fear the idea *precisely* because it would make criminal, punishable by law actions/practices which they have come to take for granted as acceptable/permissible, but which are in reality RAPE. Which I also suspect nearly all of you are aware of, but nearly none of you are willing to take responsibility for/admit. And why should you? Almost everything/everyone around you both tacitly and outwardly validate this shit. At the moment, you practically have unlimited access to us. I can imagine how you wouldn’t want to see that go. Poor, poor (white, hetero) men. How sad that one day, probably far into the future, you might not be able to rape women with abandon. Here’s a violin.

    Uh, yeah. I’ll take a few false convictions over the current situation, which is rape in essence not only encouraged by the culture, but essentially legal due to the conveniently misogynistic slant of the system. I suspect many women would agree.

    One more thing: Fuck you. I think what most men need is a sizable island in the middle of the ocean, where they can all live (and fight, fuck, and rape) each other to their black heart’s content. Only then will the scourge of mail privilege/entitlement be gone from most women’s lives. Only then will your hands and boots be off our necks long enough for us to breathe, and perhaps live livable lives. Ones where we’re not spending the majority of our time fluttering around or trying like hell to get away from you.

    Oh yeah, and fuck you.

  9. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 1:28 AM #

    “. But you see, that’s precisely the point. Men (white heterosexual men, in particular) don’t need their situation improved. Women (of color and queer, in particular), however, *do*. We have been choking under your (legal, in this case) self-serving agenda long enough. We have been and are being hurt by it, damaged by it. Raped by it, in the most direct sense. Sometimes permanently. *We* need the pendulum to swing in *our* favor, for once.”

    This is a terrible claim.

    “Things were bad for us, now they should be bad for you!”

    No. Not equality, not egalitarian.

    You’re proposing something that is intended to directly make life incredibly bad for everyone with a penis, as punishment. The current law is not set up to purposely punish all females.

    It’s set up because our justice system is built on “innocent until proven guilty”.

    “I do agree that Deuce’s law would effectively criminalize most sex for heterosexual men. Which, again, is precisely the point…as much of what passes for ‘consent’ as far as heterosexual sex is concerned is in at best a gray area and at worst an exercise in pure unfiltered woman-hatred. In other words, RAPE.”

    You can have your own opinion on it, but the line of “All heterosexual sex is rape” is, I’m sorry, laughable.

    If your entire point is to make all heterosexual men criminals for engaging in sex, I certainly hope you intend to make it a crime for all women, as well.

    “I do suspect many men who read this fear the idea *precisely* because it would make criminal, punishable by law actions/practices which they have come to take for granted as acceptable/permissible, but which are in reality RAPE.”

    Shame, really, that every woman I’ve slept with has, (by all definitions I’ve found) in fact, raped me. Funny, how that works.

    It could simply be I’m against that for the same reason I’m against a lot of things. Because it’s against the founding principles of the nation. If something is unfair, you make it equal. You don’t simply make it unfair for someone else.

    “How sad that one day, probably far into the future, you might not be able to rape women with abandon. Here’s a violin.”

    I’m going to have to ask you to see above, wherein Deuce stated that it’s against the rules to insult other readers.

    You clearly and blatantly insulted me via gross generalizations and outright hatred of men.

    The last paragraph of your post is so disgustingly misandrist, I don’t even wish to quote it, because then I’d be reproducing it.

    If your worldview is that all men are evil, blackhearted monsters, and all women are perfect, virtuous, and wonderful, you don’t need feminism. You need therapy.

  10. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 1:30 AM #

    I think our legal system doesn’t work because only 6% of rapists end up in jail. I know that 100% effectiveness is impossible. I’d be happy with 50 at this point. But SIX isn’t acceptable.

    Men do most of the raping. It’s a fact. I admit that women have raped men, and I’d apply my laws just as strictly to them as I would to men, but the fact remains that in our culture, at present, many men assume that they have rights to women’s bodies that they should not have.

    I like Twisty because she’s a good writer and calls out patriarchy for what it is. I don’t know whether she hates men or not because I’m not her, but I don’t care. I don’t, so I’m not worried about whether she does. I have never said all men are rapists. I don’t believe that “man” and “rapist” are equivalent terms. I do not hate men, but rather misogyny.

    How about we say that ALL human beings are ALL in a state of non-consent until they decide to consent? That all human beings are sovereign over their own bodies?

    I’m not insulting you, but that’s neither here nor there. This is my website. If you want to discuss things civilly, I’ll do so with you, but I won’t suffer condescension and insults on my own site because I don’t have to.

  11. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 1:35 AM #

    My law isn’t designed to punish men. It’s designed to reduce rape. There are more men who get away with rape than there are women who make false accusations. It’s a simple mathematical matter.

    No one has said that all het sex is rape, just that a lot of the coercive tactics that men use to get sex ought to be, but are not currently, considered rape.

    I’m saying this once and that’s it: this page is not about whether men suck or women suck more. If you read my posts, you should see that I do my best to try to understand the motives behind men’s behavior, but that I am not a patriarchy apologist and will call out sexism when I see it.

  12. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 1:37 AM #

    “Men do most of the raping. It’s a fact. I admit that women have raped men, and I’d apply my laws just as strictly to them as I would to men, but the fact remains that in our culture, at present, many men assume that they have rights to women’s bodies that they should not have.”

    Yes, but just because a certain group does most of a thing, doesn’t mean we should single that group out.

    If someone said “Black men do most of the murders…” on your statement, and outlined how black men should specifically be punished harder for that crime, because they’re the majority, it would be considered a terribly racist statement.

    Why, then, is it okay to punish ALL men, in order to make sure you get the ones that are criminals? “Kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out” isn’t a viable solution.

    “I have never said all men are rapists. I don’t believe that “man” and “rapist” are equivalent terms. I do not hate men, but rather misogyny.”

    Well, I was speaking of your particular phrasing. Nothing is completely unintentional. Perhaps subconscious, but not unintentional. Specifically choosing to say “Men” instead of “rapists” wasn’t any kind of accident.

    “How about we say that ALL human beings are ALL in a state of non-consent until they decide to consent? ”

    That IS the law, though. It’s assumed that nobody said yes. If it weren’t, there would be no consent law. It’s simply that in our system, the accused is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. It’s a guaranteed right.

    “I’m not insulting you, but that’s neither here nor there. This is my website. If you want to discuss things civilly, I’ll do so with you, but I won’t suffer condescension and insults on my own site because I don’t have to.”

    Well, I took your tone as insulting. I don’t recall using any insults. The poster after me, however…

  13. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 1:50 AM #

    That is not the law. The law says the accused is innocent unless the accuser can prove otherwise. That means we’re all assumed to be in a state of consent, and since we live in a society in which men control the legal system and do most of the raping, we know what that means.

    No one is advocating punishing all men. I’m advocating punishing those men that do things to women that those women consider rape. If a few men are falsely accused, that’s terrible. But the whole thing, once again, comes down to a mathematical equation: more innocent women get raped by men who never get punished under our current system than innocent men would be falsely convicted of rape in my system. That means that my system would serve the greater good, unless you think women’s safety is not as important as men’s.

  14. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 1:58 AM #

    “My law isn’t designed to punish men. It’s designed to reduce rape. There are more men who get away with rape than there are women who make false accusations. It’s a simple mathematical matter.”

    Yet, it’s specifically harsher on men than women. Men get their testicles, their ability to reproduce, their ability to be a whole person, and their entire sexual autonomy permanently, and violently, surgically removed.

    Women get some jail time.

    “No one has said that all het sex is rape, just that a lot of the coercive tactics that men use to get sex ought to be, but are not currently, considered rape.”

    A lot of the coercive tactics women use to get sex ought to be, but will never be, considered rape.

    The poster I was responding to certainly held the line that all sex is rape, or might as well be called that.

    “I’m saying this once and that’s it: this page is not about whether men suck or women suck more. If you read my posts, you should see that I do my best to try to understand the motives behind men’s behavior, but that I am not a patriarchy apologist and will call out sexism when I see it.”

    I never said it was, but I can call out misandry just as fast as misogyny can be called out.

    The problem is the way you do it. You assume that certain behaviour is “men’s behaviour”. Things like that bother me.

  15. Claire (CJ) July 3, 2008 at 2:01 AM #

    Sorry Nine Deuce. I’ll tone it down.

    Black Thirteen, I’m also a rape/incest survivor. I am sorry that you have been raped as well. It is a horrible experience, one that can traumatize you for many years, if not your whole life. I sincerely wish you peace and healing.

    However, just because an extremely rare situation (a woman raping a man) exists (and, unfortunately, happened to you), does not mean it is in equal proportion to, or is in any way the same level of a problem that something commonplace (men raping women) is. I also cannot stand male rape apologists, and get extremely angry at any and all comments to that effect. That is how I read your statements, as making excuses for male rape. That is unacceptable to me, and should be unacceptable to you especially, as a victim of rape. Everyone, male and female, suffers because of this behavior. The day everyone stops excusing rape is the day the practice will begin to stop.

    Most of the raping is done by men. Period. Most of the raping is done by men because men have most of the power. Rape is about power, in it’s most direct manifestation. It’s the most blatant form of patriarchy. Under the current system of law, men basically have the ability to rape with impunity, with little to no fear of punishment. *That* is unfair.

    Due to this unfairness, this imbalance, Deuce’s law (and others like it, another Twisty fan here) was offered as a possible strategy to level the playing field. I believe it makes a lot of sense in that context.

    The current system of law is *absolutely* slanted in men’s favor. It was created/written by men. Male privilege, male entitlement, and male bias seep from every word.

    I hate patriarchy, and men who rape. Let me be absolutely clear on that point. Let me also be absolutely clear that I don’t blame any woman (or man?) who hates men. I mean, seriously…considering the thousands upon thousands of years of oppression, of patriarchy, we are talking about when it comes to women, can you really blame females for a little bitterness/resentment/hate? It’s a natural human response. It’s certainly justified.

    And ya, I do think a lot of men suck, and have very little in the way of compassion or decency. They have been conditioned to think of women as little more than arm/sexual/home accessories, and that has done a real number on their collective psyche.

    I don’t need therapy. I need rape to stop, and I need people to stop apologizing for rape, and the system that supports it’s continuation, to stop.

    A worthier goal I can’t imagine. Can you?

  16. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 2:02 AM #

    “That is not the law. The law says the accused is innocent unless the accuser can prove otherwise.”

    The prosecution is required to prove it, and the jury to decide upon it. The judge to pass sentence.

    If we turn that on it’s head, it distorts the entire system of justice. It is not justice to assume anyone you pick up is a criminal, and to enter them into a trial as “guilty” before anything can be done.

    It’s also a logical fallacy to use yours. You cannot prove something didn’t happen. You can prove something DID happen, but you cannot prove a negative.

    “But the whole thing, once again, comes down to a mathematical equation: more innocent women get raped by men who never get punished under our current system than innocent men would be falsely convicted of rape in my system.”

    Considering how easy a false accusation would be under your system, I would argue that your system would INCREASE the amount of false accusations.

    “That means that my system would serve the greater good, unless you think women’s safety is not as important as men’s.”

    Well, your phrasing seems to say that women’s safety is MORE important than men’s. Which is unacceptable.

  17. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 2:06 AM #

    I have stated on several occasions that I don’t believe in “men’s” behavior or “women’s” behavior. All gendered behavior is socially constructed. That means that it’s not innate. But social constructions have some force, and a lot of men and a lot of women adhere to the gender roles they’re expected to fill. That means that there are generalizations that, with qualification for exceptions, can be made.

    The above poster did not say all het sex is rape, just that a lot of the ways that men have and do manipulate women into having sex should be counted as rape. Our society’s sexual dynamic is gross. We’re all expected to go along with the “men want it, women try not to give it up, so men have to trick/coerce women” system, in which a lot of coerced het sex does amount to rape.

  18. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 2:17 AM #

    “Women might not sexually abuse people if they were not sexually abused, no?”

    Plenty of people, both men and women, that have never been sexually abused, commit sexual abuse.

    Every woman I’ve been with only ended up in bed with me because of weeks or months (in one case years) of cajoling, harassment, and more. I refuse to believe that every single one of them had been abused in some way, and that the only reason they acted in such a manner was the fault of men.

    “All gendered behavior is socially constructed. ”

    Not necessarily. A mother bonding with her offspring has little to do with society, and much to do with chemical changes in the body intended for just that purpose.

    “That means that there are generalizations that, with qualification for exceptions, can be made.”

    Well, I could say that it’s socially acceptable to make the “het sex= rape, men = rapists” generalization, but you’d certainly have a problem with “women = gold diggers”, despite the social construction that women should seek out men and use them for their money.

    “The above poster did not say all het sex is rape, just that a lot of the ways that men have and do manipulate women into having sex should be counted as rape.”

    Sounded a lot like it was being said that most, if not all, het sex is rape.

    “Our society’s sexual dynamic is gross. We’re all expected to go along with the “men want it, women try not to give it up, so men have to trick/coerce women” system, in which a lot of coerced het sex does amount to rape.”

    Well, things like Twisty’s law, and yours, to an extent, feed that dynamic.

    Especially hers. Born out of the assumption that all men want it, and no women want it, therefore, any man that does it, should be a criminal.

  19. Genevieve July 3, 2008 at 2:19 AM #

    A few months ago Jess McCabe from the British feminist site The F-Word wrote an excellent post about ways to reduce rape. Some of her suggestions, would, I think, change the system in a way which wouldn’t punish non-rapists, and therefore I want to put this in as a ‘third’ point of view in this discussion:

    http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2007/11/tories_set_out

  20. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 2:21 AM #

    I don’t argue that a lot of women fulfill the gold-digger role, but my explanation for that is that our society offers women fewer opportunities to make their own money.

    How does my law feed that dynamic? It tries to put a stop to it. I don’t think all men want or that no women do, I think that a lot of men have come to expect it as a right, which is where the problem is. Wanting or not wanting is a whole other issue. It’s entitlement that leads to coercion, to rape.

  21. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 2:22 AM #

    Genevieve – The UK certainly needs to do something. Their conviction rates are even worse than those in the US. I’ll get to reading.

  22. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 2:32 AM #

    “I don’t argue that a lot of women fulfill the gold-digger role, but my explanation for that is that our society offers women fewer opportunities to make their own money.”

    Aren’t women enrolling in, and graduating college in higher amounts than men?

    Many women that DO make their own money still have no problem taking it from someone else, as well.

    “How does my law feed that dynamic? It tries to put a stop to it. I don’t think all men want or that no women do, I think that a lot of men have come to expect it as a right, which is where the problem is. Wanting or not wanting is a whole other issue. It’s entitlement that leads to coercion, to rape.”

    I said to an extent, yours, but especially hers.

    If a law assumes a het sex act is rape, by default, with the man as criminal, and woman as victim, by default, it’s assuming that men want sex, and women don’t.

  23. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 2:42 AM #

    They are, but there is still the problem of women being shepherded into the humanities, which have less earning potential. And there are still the problems of the wage gap and the glass ceiling.

    Women have been taught from a young age that their goal in life ought to be to land a rich man, just as men are taught to seek out “hot” women and lots of ‘em.

    My law doesn’t assume that a sex act is rape, but that people are always in complete control over their own bodies and that they decide to break their state of non-consent.

  24. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 3:08 AM #

    Claire – I ain’t mad atcha.

  25. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 4:40 AM #

    “Black Thirteen, I’m also a rape/incest survivor. I am sorry that you have been raped as well. It is a horrible experience, one that can traumatize you for many years, if not your whole life. I sincerely wish you peace and healing.”

    Thank you. You know, I think that’s the first time a woman on a feminist site has ever taken me at any seriousness. I do wholly and truly appreciate that.

    “However, just because an extremely rare situation (a woman raping a man) exists (and, unfortunately, happened to you), does not mean it is in equal proportion to, or is in any way the same level of a problem that something commonplace (men raping women) is.”

    Well, my whole point is that something being more common than another doesn’t make it worse or better than the other. Yes, one is more rare. Does that mean the more common one is worse? They are equal in terms of atrociousness, simply unequal in terms of frequency.

    “That is how I read your statements, as making excuses for male rape. That is unacceptable to me, and should be unacceptable to you especially, as a victim of rape. Everyone, male and female, suffers because of this behavior. The day everyone stops excusing rape is the day the practice will begin to stop.”

    It was not meant to come off as such. With my situation, hell, until I read a definition that said begging/pleading/gifts/coercion counted as rape, I just assumed I had a bunch of sex I wasn’t interested in. If that makes sense.

    “Most of the raping is done by men. Period. Most of the raping is done by men because men have most of the power. ”

    I never denied that it’s mostly men. It’s also mostly men because it’s easier to force something into someone, than it is to force it into yourself. I know this.

    I also posit that it’s not just because of a power dynamic. Even if men were to be powerless in society, they’d still find ways to do it. The desire to take something that isn’t yours to take, simply because you want to prove you can do it, or because you want it, is a very human thing. It’s why there is murder, robbery, and pretty much every violent or negative act the species perpetrates.

    “Due to this unfairness, this imbalance, Deuce’s law (and others like it, another Twisty fan here) was offered as a possible strategy to level the playing field. I believe it makes a lot of sense in that context.”

    It doesn’t, though. It simply makes it uneven in the other direction. Especially Twisty’s, which ensures that men are always guilty, and women are always innocent.

    “The current system of law is *absolutely* slanted in men’s favor. It was created/written by men. Male privilege, male entitlement, and male bias seep from every word.”

    The basis for a lot of the legal system comes from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I find the Bill a very important set of inalienable rights, not some terrifying aspect of male privilege.

    That’s my problem with the law(s) in question. They deny those rights to some, while granting them to others.

    “Let me also be absolutely clear that I don’t blame any woman (or man?) who hates men. I mean, seriously…considering the thousands upon thousands of years of oppression, of patriarchy, we are talking about when it comes to women, can you really blame females for a little bitterness/resentment/hate? It’s a natural human response. It’s certainly justified.”

    I don’t think so. On some level expected, but justified? Not so much. Hating an entire group for the actions of some of it is not justified. That would be like me looking over my past, seeing how many women have wronged me in how many ways, and then saying “I refuse to associate with any woman at all, ever”.

    Yet, despite serious, crushing issues in the past, I still maintain friendships with women. Do I limit or place boundaries on them, to an extent? I admit, that yes, I do. I however do not hate all women because some women did something.

    For instance, for someone to hate me, based on nothing more than the chromosomes I was given at conception, and not because of who I am or what I do? Not justified.

    “And ya, I do think a lot of men suck, and have very little in the way of compassion or decency. They have been conditioned to think of women as little more than arm/sexual/home accessories, and that has done a real number on their collective psyche.”

    You’d be surprised that a lot of men don’t actually think like that. I could as easily say that women have been conditioned to think of men as little more than walking ATMs that owe them “perfect” lives, and that has done a real number on their collective psyche.

    A great deal of us aren’t evil.

    “I don’t need therapy. I need rape to stop, and I need people to stop apologizing for rape, and the system that supports it’s continuation, to stop.

    A worthier goal I can’t imagine. Can you?”

    I was responding to what you said basically saying that men = evil, horrid, and women = good, virtuous.

    That if one thinks that, perhaps one needs therapy.

    Yes, a cessation of rape would be lovely. As bad as this sounds, it’s unrealistic. Not because of society, or patriarchy. Because of humanity. Because of what we are. It’s unrealistic because it’s like asking humans to stop stealing. Lying. Killing.

    I find humans to be an incredibly flawed species. Sentience and sapience are wonderful things, but they bring with them a host of flaws. There will always be that aspect of humanity that sees something it desires and cannot possess, that will break the law to have it.

    “They are, but there is still the problem of women being shepherded into the humanities, which have less earning potential. And there are still the problems of the wage gap and the glass ceiling.”

    There is that, but a woman who chooses to deviate from that path is still able to.

    “My law doesn’t assume that a sex act is rape, but that people are always in complete control over their own bodies and that they decide to break their state of non-consent.”

    With the problems that Twisty’s law brings, too. Only she revels in those problems and considers them great.

    Humans (mostly, generally) tend to be a very sexual species. Making sex a terrifying act for all people involved (“What if she changes her mind in a week, about tonight? I’ll get castrated! I’d better just stay friends with her!”) isn’t going to help.

    It would create serious dissent between the sexes, honestly. Heterosexual men would avoid interacting with women out of fear that they might accuse them of rape, because of how incredibly easy it would be.

    Even were the law in place, you’d never know there was a false accusation. People that believed in the law would stand up and say “Look at all the rape convictions, our law works! So far, no man has gotten off, so there must be no false accusations! We have done it!”.

    After all, if someone is guilty just because someone else said so, what’s a false accusation?

  26. bonobobabe July 3, 2008 at 12:44 PM #

    Hey, Nine Deuce. Did you change something on your site recently? Usually when I leave a comment, it tells me that I’m logged in as my wordpress id, but now I have to type in my info.

    Anyway…I’m about ready to vomit from reading all these idiotic comments by men, who can’t rub two brain cells together and get a cogent argument going.

    “Men do most of the raping. It’s a fact. I admit that women have raped men, and I’d apply my laws just as strictly to them as I would to men, but the fact remains that in our culture, at present, many men assume that they have rights to women’s bodies that they should not have.”

    Yes, but just because a certain group does most of a thing, doesn’t mean we should single that group out.

    If someone said “Black men do most of the murders…” on your statement, and outlined how black men should specifically be punished harder for that crime, because they’re the majority, it would be considered a terribly racist statement.

    Why, then, is it okay to punish ALL men, in order to make sure you get the ones that are criminals? “Kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out” isn’t a viable solution.

    Dude, where did Nine Deuce ever say that men should be punished HARDER for crimes. Men are punished hardly at all for rapes. We’re talking about punishing people appropriately for crimes. Not singling people out for more punishment than the average.

    And no one ever said to punish all men whether or not they committed crimes just because some men rape.

    Honestly, the fact that you can’t even read someone’s words and interpret them correctly is really fucking sad. The fact that you have nothing better to do than embarrass yourself by showing your inability to formulate rational thoughts and cogent arguments is really pathetic.

  27. bonobobabe July 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM #

    Every woman I’ve been with only ended up in bed with me because of weeks or months (in one case years) of cajoling, harassment, and more. I refuse to believe that every single one of them had been abused in some way, and that the only reason they acted in such a manner was the fault of men.

    Why am I not surprised. Dude, maybe it’s you.

    Although, I am disturbed by your use of the word “harassment.” That’s not good, dude. If you have to harass a woman to get her to sleep with you, then you are undesirable…and a dickhead.

    I think I know why some men are all bent out of shape when feminists start talking about rape. Because rape is the only sex some of these guys are going to get.

    Why personal improvement and developing a less obnoxious personality never occurs to them, I’ll never know.

  28. Nine Deuce July 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM #

    bonobobabe – I had the same problem. WordPress support told me to clear my cache and cookies and that worked.

  29. Black Thirteen July 3, 2008 at 6:09 PM #

    “Dude, where did Nine Deuce ever say that men should be punished HARDER for crimes. Men are punished hardly at all for rapes. We’re talking about punishing people appropriately for crimes. Not singling people out for more punishment than the average.”

    Castrating men and imprisoning women. Let’s see…which one is worse? Oh, look, one is being punished more than the other, for the same crime.

    Also, castration is not an “appropriate” punishment. At all.

    “Why am I not surprised. Dude, maybe it’s you.

    Although, I am disturbed by your use of the word “harassment.” That’s not good, dude. If you have to harass a woman to get her to sleep with you, then you are undesirable…and a dickhead.”

    You’ve apparently misread.

    You really shouldn’t attempt to insult someone based on their reading comprehension, then make a reading comprehension error of this magnitude. It makes you look really bad.

    In other words THEY harassed ME, cajoled ME, begged ME, for sex.

    Not the other way around. I’m sorry you completely missed the part wherein I said “they acted in such a manner”.

    As in, the women, harassed me for sex. Not the other way around.

    But thanks for all your assumptions and insults.

  30. gare July 3, 2008 at 8:32 PM #

    i came back for MTV, part XIX, presumably where we trace back to where martha quinn went wrong (i hated her hair!), but back on RAPE AGAIN .. its a rape kegger! .. how many clinics etc, victims.. etc, have you actually worked with? anecdotal (no ive never used that before) cutting and pasting aside, experienced people in the field tend to be .. well you know.. what DID gare know?

  31. Claire (CJ) July 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM #

    Black Thirteen –

    Thanks for accepting my apology. Thank you also for helping to contribute to a more civil discussion as far as you and I are concerned. I will do my best to ensure that it continues as such.

    Our system, our laws, in their entirety, were created by and for (white, heterosexual) men. There’s no getting around that. The Bill of Rights included. All written by affluent, aristocratic, deeply sexist and (for the most part) deeply racist (white, heterosexual) men. The law, when challenged on matters of sexism, racism, and classism, shows it’s true colors quickly.

    As in the case of rape. The legal deck is stacked in men’s favor. That’s not fair. What Nine Deuce, Twisty, and others are trying to say is that there’s *got* to be another way. Because as it stands, women are literally, across the globe, being raped (and living in fear of rape) almost to DEATH. It’s all around us, especially in other countries where there are even *less* protections for women.

    Turning the law on it’s head is one hypothetical way to achieve a more level (but far from perfect) playing field. It’s just an idea…a platform, really…a springboard from which other, likely more realistic ideas will leap from. It’s a mental exercise in ‘alright, everyone, this is a big fucking problem. Here’s a possible solution. Tell me what you think. Let’s brainstorm and fix this shit once and for all!’.

    Which is not to say that many people (myself included) would not like to see Deuce’s law enacted verbatim. Many would…not out of the highest motivations, perhaps, but there you go. That pesky human nature again. I find it interesting that rape is inevitable, as far as you and many others are concerned, along with violence and lying and every other low impulse the human race has ever succumbed to, yet the (fully justified) hatred of men is utterly intolerable. Isn’t hatred, by your own definition, pure human nature? How can you or anyone deny women the very human impulse to hate and despise those who seek to harm us?

    And anyway, hatred doesn’t necessarily mean hordes of women beating the shit out of men in the streets (though I’m sure there are segments of the population that would at times go for just such a solution). It usually just leads to heightened suspicion and caution, and significant prejudice based on experience. Also very human in nature. Not necessarily right, of course, but certainly human.

    Women are human, Black Thirteen. We are the same kind of human men are. We are susceptible to all of the same vices and nasty habits and wrong-headed ways of thinking and acting. We are no better. We are, however, OPPRESSED. Meaning we are the ones being stepped on, discriminated against, raped, battered, left out in the cold and on the street.

    You speak of women graduating college in higher numbers. That’s all well and good…but you see, due to a certain fact of biology, women are the ones who are biologically responsible for carrying on the species. The glass ceiling and wage gape are very directly related to our needing certain accommodations in this area…without which we are quite literally powerless once we have children. Powerless, and in extreme poverty, in many cases (including my own).

    Daycare is insanely expensive. Maternity leave is not paid. Jobs are often gone by the time we are able to come back to them. Pumping is for all intents and purposes prohibited in most working environments. And again, we see evidence of the system being designed by and for men. The current working model, that is the culture of most workplaces, is based on men who have wives at home to take care of the children. It is slanted to benefit men. It is tailor-made for them. It screws women openly.

    As a parent, I can attest to this with absolute certainty. Because of my lack of college education (working class girl in the house!) and a host of other things, I never had a huge amount of earning power, even before I had a child. However once I did have my son, I found myself in an absolute no-win, catch-22 situation. There’s no daycare, not a single provider me and my ex can afford. I can’t find a part-time job to save my life, as they essentially do not exist. Working 40+ workweeks, then coming home to an active and cranky toddler who, at this stage of his life, absolutely needs me every waking second is without a doubt the most draining and excruciatingly difficult thing one can imagine. It’s two full-time jobs, only one paid. Only one even *acknowledged*. My living circumstances, due to finances and my recent separation, are horrid. I can’t get insurance because no one will hire someone who took 2 years off to raise a baby as a permanent employee (meaning all that is available to me are crappy temp jobs with less than no job security and abysmal pay).

    If I were single and childless (re: a man or a married man with a wife at home), I’d be living on my own. I’d have a job. I’d have a car. Because I am a working class woman and have a child, I have nothing. What’s worse is I am *blamed* for it…either way. If I work crappy jobs with shitty hours and never see my child (which I little to no choice but to do at this point, it’s that or starve), I’m a bad mother and raising a felon. If I don’t work and raise my child, I’m a welfare leech raising a felon. I lose either way. There’s no middle ground. There’s no help. There’s no nothing. Just a big gaping hole of blame and shame, and piles and piles of bills I can’t pay. Bad credit. Shitty housing, poor school and care choices for my child, the list goes on, and endlessly feeds on itself. I’m quickly coming to understand that there’s no way out.

    I call it (and I think I’ve seen it called) the Mommy Penalty. We are certainly *expected* to get married and have children and stay home with them, but once we do, we are totally screwed. We lose our ability to support ourselves and our children, especially in the event of divorce or death/disability of our spouses. If we are *lucky*, and our spouses manage to support us (because really, what other way is there? The workforce is designed around single and married MEN and their needs, it does not support us, therefore we must rely on our spouses/partners/families) throughout our children’s childhoods and working lives, we then have the pleasure of being fucked over by social security/pensions when they do die…because even though we might have spent our entire adult lives supporting others without pay, as far as the government and most companies are concerned, our contributions count for shit. We get little to nothing. Not nearly enough to live on. Most poor older adults are women for this very reason.

    There is a reason women can only go so far in the working world, Black Thirteen. It’s because we’re women and we have babies. If we don’t have them, we’re freaks, lesbians, child-haters, man-haters, unnatural weirdos (and indeed, I think more women are choosing not to have them because they are seeing the writing on the wall younger and younger…can’t blame them!). If we do have them, we become perpetual dependents on the goodwill of others (re: spouses, partners, friends, family) because the government and society, in effect, tell us to fuck off and fend for ourselves (while raising perfect children with no money, no housing, and with a plastic smile on our faces to boot!), all the while making it practically impossible to do so.

    So there you go. It’s no mystery. Having children and taking care of others (re: the elderly) come with serious financial consequences. Most women pay the price in one way or another…because these responsibilities primarily fall to us. Men generally consider themselves above the grunt work. Someone has to pick up the slack, and it’s us.

    Say what you will about it. You’ll never have this problem. If you do have children, your wife or partner is probably responsible for most of their care (and is uncompensated for it), while you go off and work, make the money, have all of the power in the relationship because you have a ‘real job’ while she only ‘mooches’ off of you (while raising your children, uncompensated, putting herself at an extreme disadvantage for finding work that pays a living wage while doing so).

    If you don’t have children, and aren’t planning to, congrats. You’ll never have to deal with this issue and can continue judging others who are suffering because of it (myself included). Yes yes, I know, I shouldn’t have had children. Only upper-middle class, educated, affluent people should have children. Only they have reproductive choice and rights. The rest of us should keep our heads down and work our lowly jobs until we die single and childless, making sure to keep our pesky problems out of sight so that the privileged don’t have to see/hear/deal with us, or even worse, feel guilty for ignoring our circumstances. Yes yes, it’s all my fault, I did it to myself, I should have to suffer the consequences. Screw me and my kid. We should languish in poverty and despair as punishment for being poor and economically disadvantaged. Right.

    Anyway, hopefully I’ve made my point. More likely though, I’ll get a string of reasons why this is yet another unfortunate circumstance that can’t be prevented, can’t be avoided, and should just be dismissed as unimportant. Or, I’ll get told in condescending tones why it’s all the fault of the people who are in this situation, and that we should be more responsible and pull ourselves up by our fraying or non-existent bootstraps. That’s the American Dream, afterall.

    End.

    CJ.

  32. Black Thirteen July 4, 2008 at 1:24 AM #

    I suppose I’d like to add that “dickhead” isn’t really an appropriate insult for someone to sling on a feminist site, considering it’s taking a slur for genitalia and making it into an insult.

  33. bonobobabe July 4, 2008 at 1:36 AM #

    You’ve apparently misread.

    You really shouldn’t attempt to insult someone based on their reading comprehension, then make a reading comprehension error of this magnitude. It makes you look really bad.

    I may have misread, but I don’t feel bad about it. Here’s what you wrote:

    “Every woman I’ve been with only ended up in bed with me because of weeks or months (in one case years) of cajoling, harassment, and more.”

    You know why I don’t feel bad about it? Because it’s fucking vague. No wonder I misread. And my misunderstanding is of some magnitude? Are you on glue? You were vague and now you’re acting like I’m an idiot?

    And I’m tired of men coming onto feminist forums, getting people worked up, and then chastizing us for the way we react. You are pushing our buttons, buddy, and if we call you names, suck it up. Quit using the whole oh-the-women-are-being-mean-to-me-that’s-why-feminism-sucks routine. I don’t fucking care.

  34. bonobobabe July 4, 2008 at 1:50 AM #

    OK, I cleared my cache and cookies, and it’s still doing it, but not at other wordpress blogs. Oh well.

    Anyway, this whole thing reminds me of something I read in MAD magazine when I was a girl. It was about superheroes and villains. Always the villain would be polite and ask the superhero if he wanted a spot of tea, and then the superhero would blast him and say mean things, etc. They had a whole layout, and it was funny. The villain was polite, the superhero was rude.

    The deal is, by focusing on manners and polite discourse, the anti-feminists (whether they are men or women) are trying to take the spotlight off themselves. They are trying to prove that feminists are assholes, but they don’t want their true agenda to show (i.e. that they hate women and find them inferior), so they latch on to something superficial and stupid, like their manners and conversational style.

    I’m not playing the civility game. It’s not the issue, anyway. And when women are in a space together, they might say things that they don’t necessarily mean in the strictest sense, but if men witness it, they go ballistic. “Oh, those hens are in that space over there cackling about castrating us. They can’t do that. Let’s invade and tell them they’re mean and rude.”

    If you don’t like feminism, then don’t read feminist blogs. You aren’t going to change our minds, anyway.

  35. Black Thirteen July 4, 2008 at 2:07 AM #

    “Our system, our laws, in their entirety, were created by and for (white, heterosexual) men. There’s no getting around that. The Bill of Rights included.”

    Perhaps so, but there’s no denying that that very Bill is what gives you the rights you, as a woman, have.

    “As in the case of rape. The legal deck is stacked in men’s favor. That’s not fair. ”

    See, that’s an odd way of putting it. That’s like saying the legal deck is stacked in the favor of murderers, car thieves, and anyone that goes to trial.

    Our legal system requires that proof of a crime be presented and decided upon. Not proof of no crime. That’s proving a negative, and a logical fallacy.

    “find it interesting that rape is inevitable, as far as you and many others are concerned, along with violence and lying and every other low impulse the human race has ever succumbed to, yet the (fully justified) hatred of men is utterly intolerable. Isn’t hatred, by your own definition, pure human nature? How can you or anyone deny women the very human impulse to hate and despise those who seek to harm us?”

    Because desiring something one cannot have is humanity. It’s why we tend to fall into capitalistic societies. People want things. They want to have them, and if they can’t have them, there are certain people who will choose to take them.

    The hatred of an entire gender (men, in this case) is intolerable because every single man is not seeking to harm you. Far from it. If the hatred of women is intolerable, so should the hatred of men be.

    “It usually just leads to heightened suspicion and caution, and significant prejudice based on experience. Also very human in nature. Not necessarily right, of course, but certainly human.”

    My point is, it’s fast becoming the only acceptable prejudice in this country (besides hatred of atheists, but that’s another story).

    You wouldn’t accept someone hating black people because they were robbed by one, you wouldn’t accept me hating women because they’ve caused me emotional trauma, so why is it acceptable to hate men?

    “Women are human, Black Thirteen. We are the same kind of human men are. We are susceptible to all of the same vices and nasty habits and wrong-headed ways of thinking and acting.”

    Never said you weren’t. The problem is certain ways of thinking, I’ve seen, tend to place women as a better kind of human than men are.

    “You speak of women graduating college in higher numbers. That’s all well and good…but you see, due to a certain fact of biology, women are the ones who are biologically responsible for carrying on the species. The glass ceiling and wage gape are very directly related to our needing certain accommodations in this area…without which we are quite literally powerless once we have children.”

    Children are still a choice. No one forces women in this country to have them. Plenty of women can delay children, go to college, get a good job with insurance, and job security, and have kids.

    Or simply have none at all.

    “The current working model, that is the culture of most workplaces, is based on men who have wives at home to take care of the children. It is slanted to benefit men. It is tailor-made for them. It screws women openly.”

    More accurately, it’s based on workers that won’t suddenly require vast amounts of time off of work. Employers are in business. Business requires efficiency. It’s inefficient to have an employee that isn’t present at work for a long period of time.

    That’s just how it is. When someone needs a job done, they need the job done. They don’t need someone who isn’t there, and a “warm body” temp in their place.

    “What’s worse is I am *blamed* for it…either way. If I work crappy jobs with shitty hours and never see my child (which I little to no choice but to do at this point, it’s that or starve), I’m a bad mother and raising a felon. If I don’t work and raise my child, I’m a welfare leech raising a felon. I lose either way. There’s no middle ground. There’s no help. There’s no nothing. Just a big gaping hole of blame and shame, and piles and piles of bills I can’t pay. Bad credit. Shitty housing, poor school and care choices for my child, the list goes on, and endlessly feeds on itself. I’m quickly coming to understand that there’s no way out.”

    A lot of that could be said about men that can’t afford to pay child support.

    “Say what you will about it. You’ll never have this problem. If you do have children, your wife or partner is probably responsible for most of their care (and is uncompensated for it), while you go off and work, make the money, have all of the power in the relationship because you have a ‘real job’ while she only ‘mooches’ off of you (while raising your children, uncompensated, putting herself at an extreme disadvantage for finding work that pays a living wage while doing so).”

    It might be an unpopular view, but having a house, electricity, water, food, cable, internet, and whatever else all provided to you free of charge is pretty large compensation. Also, I know a fair amount of mothers who take great insult at the concept that motherhood is a terrible task that should require financial compensation simply for doing it.

    Though, no, I will not be having children. It’s too tempting a thing for some women to use against men. Yes, having children can cause serious financial harm to a male, as well. I’m sure you’re somewhat unwilling to believe that, and that’s fine.

    I’m simply unwilling to put myself in that situation. This is also because I cannot tolerate children. Coupled with the intense dislike and disinterest in the act that creates them. Not to mention my inability to function properly in romantic relationships, and the lack of desire for those, too.

    Do you not think it a burdensome thing, that while women may be taught to have children, we’re taught that our entire purpose in life is to throw it down the drain at a job we hate, for ridiculous amounts of time, until we die?

    “If you don’t have children, and aren’t planning to, congrats. You’ll never have to deal with this issue and can continue judging others who are suffering because of it (myself included). Yes yes, I know, I shouldn’t have had children. Only upper-middle class, educated, affluent people should have children. Only they have reproductive choice and rights.”

    Well, to this, I say, everyone has the rights to make decisions. That includes bad ones. I’m not wealthy by any means, but I can still say that having children when you can barely afford yourself isn’t a good decision.

    Sometimes in life, you simply can’t have something you want. In an overpopulated world, children are not a need anymore. They’re just a want.

    “The rest of us should keep our heads down and work our lowly jobs until we die single and childless, making sure to keep our pesky problems out of sight so that the privileged don’t have to see/hear/deal with us, or even worse, feel guilty for ignoring our circumstances.”

    There’s nothing wrong with being single and childfree.

    I would honestly not live my life any other way at this point.

    “Yes yes, it’s all my fault, I did it to myself, I should have to suffer the consequences. Screw me and my kid. We should languish in poverty and despair as punishment for being poor and economically disadvantaged. Right.”

    Not to be rude, but having a child IS a situation you put yourself into. (Unless there’s more details than I know about.)

    It’s not punishment for bad decisions, it’s simply a lack of reward for them.

    Do you think it a proper decision to expect taxpayers to give their hard earned money to support people that make bad choices in life?

    I’m not at all nice or easy on people with kids. I’m sorry for any offense it causes you. I do not like children, and I tend not to like most people that choose to have them.

    It’s simply out of distaste for the kids themselves, and for the selfishness of people adding more to an already crushingly overpopulated planet.

    Also because a fair amount of the parents I meet seem to think the world should start revolving around them, and that everything should accommodate them.

  36. Black Thirteen July 4, 2008 at 4:17 AM #

    “You know why I don’t feel bad about it? Because it’s fucking vague. No wonder I misread. And my misunderstanding is of some magnitude? Are you on glue? You were vague and now you’re acting like I’m an idiot?”

    No, I wasn’t vague. My statement is quite clear. Especially when you take into account the WHOLE statement, not a cherry-picked section of it.

    It was clear to everyone else here.

    “And I’m tired of men coming onto feminist forums, getting people worked up, and then chastizing us for the way we react. You are pushing our buttons, buddy, and if we call you names, suck it up. Quit using the whole oh-the-women-are-being-mean-to-me-that’s-why-feminism-sucks routine. I don’t fucking care.”

    Nope. I’m going by the rules, wherein Deuce said don’t fucking insult other people.

    Also, no, I won’t “suck it up”. Unless you’d like to “suck it up” in the face of sexist, gendered insults made out of slurs for your genitalia.

    I’m not “criticizing” you for the way you react. I was pointing out how ignorant it appears to attack someone’s reading comprehension, while making a huge error in your own.

    I’m through responding to you. You’re sexist, rude, insulting, and a rape apologist. Good day to you.

  37. Claire (CJ) July 4, 2008 at 6:12 AM #

    Black Thirteen –

    I was once a childfree person myself (and know all the jargon and arguments, so bring them on). And yes, there is an awful lot you don’t know, and will never know, about the circumstances that led me to becoming a parent. None of it is any of your business.

    And no, I will never believe the right answers to the problems working parents face, especially female parents is “Screw them, they never should have had kids in the first place, let them suffer, starve, and die for all I care because I’m smart, well-off, and hate kids anyway. I’m so awesome. Yay me!”

    You go right on hating kids and their parents. The world, the human world, the animal world, does in fact revolve around reproduction. Humans have definitely over-reproduced, to be sure. But I’m never going to apologize for having my one child, because I love him and he is wonderful and precious to me.

    I used to think kids were a horrible inconvenience that should be seen and not heard, or preferably never born at all. Now I realize they’re just people like the rest of us, and I treat them accordingly…and have stopped taking myself and my own petty concerns so damn seriously in the process.

    I love my son, and though parenting has been hard on me, I love being his parent. It has brought about much of my emotional and personal growth to date. It has made me a far more compassionate, understanding, intelligent and focused person that I ever was before, or likely could have been. It took the focus off my belly button (partially, at least), and put it on more important matters.

    Having a child might be a ‘bad choice’ to you because I’m not rich, white, and college educated, and I guess that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. You are not, however, entitled to decide my child and me don’t deserve a good quality of life because you, in all your childfree, educated and perfect wisdom have decided we are undesirables.

    That’s crap. I’d like you to own up to that.

    And yes, I absolutely think everyone should contribute in some way to the rearing of future generations. Especially those who think we’ve made ‘bad decisions’…I mean, don’t you *want* people like me to raise *productive citizens*? Isn’t that your bag, what you’re all about? I obviously am incapable of accomplishing this on my own…so how ’bout a little help, since you’re so concerned? It benefits us all in the long run anyway!

    As for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, sure they afford me some freedoms, but certainly not because the people who wrote them intended them to. All of the freedoms women enjoy today were fought for, mostly by women who sacrificed both body and mind to help us reach the stalemate we have today as far as women’s rights. Better off than before to be sure, but still a long way to go.

    One last thing, Black Thirteen. I would like to remind you that most people in this world are neither white, educated, middle-class, or well-off in any way shape or form. The middle and upper classes are minorities, by a HUGE margin. The poor and working class comprise the BULK OF FREAKING HUMAN CIVILIZATION, half or more of that bulk being female…are you really telling me that you think it perfectly permissible to strip the majority of the human race of our reproductive rights? Because if you are, that’s just fucking crazy.

    And spare me the putting off childrearing until an ‘appropriate time’ and ‘everyone can go to college’ routine. Your class privilege is showing. Most people who don’t go to college or don’t finish college do so because of financial concerns (ahem, me!). No rich or middle class mommies and daddies subsidizing their education. And no government grants for them, either (ahem, ME!).

    Do you have any concept of how difficult, nay IMPOSSIBLE it might be to try and work your way through college on a working-class salary…with children to care for to boot? Rent, food, gas, daycare, medical expenses…the shit adds up, man. You obviously have no concept of this whatsoever. Lucky you. You’re so smart! How wonderful that you and a handful of others have managed to navigate the human experience without making any choices that would negate tough decisions later on down the road. *Applause* Pardon me while I revel in your perfection.

    Okay, so that was more than a little facetious. I honestly can’t help it at this point. Your arguments are so rigid, so unforgiving, so…cold. There’s no humanity in them. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT LIKE YOU, GET IT? Does that mean we all should fuck off and die, and that our children and families should fucking starve or languish in abject fucking poverty? Because you say so? Because you think you’re better than we are? Because you don’t like us and think we’re stupid and make bad choices?

    Yeah, I expect some exceptional explanations (more likely, rationalizations) for THAT.

    • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) March 9, 2013 at 2:00 AM #

      Omgoddess you sound so much like my mom I want to cry my soul goes out to you I feel like I know you (sorry that sounded creepy) My mom puts her heart and SOUL into providing for her children. She is a working class warrior. Some people will never understand that and honestly if anyone they should be the ones to fucking die.Your words matter to me. My mom would do anything for me even try to get me help for my chronic health issues when she is working full time! You are the face of humankind. Peace.

  38. Me July 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM #

    Actually, your statement wasn’t clear to me, either, but whatever.

    I’m sure I’ll catch hell for saying this, but I have to agree on everything you said about children…but hey, I’m a misanthropist.

  39. bonobobabe July 4, 2008 at 1:20 PM #

    No, I wasn’t vague. My statement is quite clear. Especially when you take into account the WHOLE statement, not a cherry-picked section of it.

    I read the whole statement, and it was vague.

    It was clear to everyone else here.

    How do you know? You’re just making assumptions.

    Also, no, I won’t “suck it up”. Unless you’d like to “suck it up” in the face of sexist, gendered insults made out of slurs for your genitalia.

    Dude, has a black person ever called you a honky (or whatever the term is nowadays)? Did it bother you even a little bit? Probably not, because when there’s an imbalance of power and privilege, the less privileged cannot truly insult the more privileged. But a white person calling a black person the n word is a totally different thing. So, my calling you a dickhead is way less aggregious than your calling me a c**t, if you were so inclined, though I’m sure you’re way too polite to do so.

    I’m not “criticizing” you for the way you react. I was pointing out how ignorant it appears to attack someone’s reading comprehension, while making a huge error in your own.

    Again, I don’t believe my error was huge. You were vague. And if any of the female, feminist commenters would like to put in their two cents, I’d be happy to hear it. It’s possible that I was the only one who didn’t get the gist. I don’t care what the males have to say, since they’d probably take your side out of spite.

    I’m through responding to you. You’re sexist, rude, insulting, and a rape apologist. Good day to you.

    Well, that’s the best news I’ve heard all day. I find it quite hilarious, though, that you claim I’m a rape apologist. I think you have me confused with yourself.

    • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) March 9, 2013 at 2:03 AM #

      Comment was definitely vague I think he didnt realize it was sexist (yup that clueless) until you pointed it out and is no denying it like he denies his male privilege. What a loser. (him of course not u, u are one of my favorite comenters)

  40. Black Thirteen July 4, 2008 at 5:54 PM #

    “That’s crap. I’d like you to own up to that.”

    There’s nothing to “own up to”, because all you did was invent a bunch of assumptions about me that are inaccurate. I’m not “rich”, nor did I say only white people should have kids, or only the college educated, or any of the other nonsense you spat at me.

    “You are not, however, entitled to decide my child and me don’t deserve a good quality of life because you, in all your childfree, educated and perfect wisdom have decided we are undesirables.”

    You decided it, though. By having a child you weren’t in a position to afford.

    I really want a 60″ plasma HD TV. I cannot afford it. My options are go into debt to buy one, or don’t buy one. I choose not to buy one until such time as I might be able to afford it.

    Kids are the same way. They’re not wonderful, magical, life-improving bundles of joy. They’re screaming, squealing, shitting, pissing, puking bundles of noise. That further contribute to wrecking the planet with overpopulation.

    “And yes, I absolutely think everyone should contribute in some way to the rearing of future generations. Especially those who think we’ve made ‘bad decisions’…I mean, don’t you *want* people like me to raise *productive citizens*? Isn’t that your bag, what you’re all about? I obviously am incapable of accomplishing this on my own…so how ’bout a little help, since you’re so concerned? It benefits us all in the long run anyway!”

    I’ll be dead by the time your kid is old enough to make a splash in the world. I’m not having any, so I don’t care about improving the world after I’m dead. Just while I’m still in it.

    “I would like to remind you that most people in this world are neither white, educated, middle-class, or well-off in any way shape or form. The middle and upper classes are minorities, by a HUGE margin. The poor and working class comprise the BULK OF FREAKING HUMAN CIVILIZATION, half or more of that bulk being female…are you really telling me that you think it perfectly permissible to strip the majority of the human race of our reproductive rights? Because if you are, that’s just fucking crazy.”

    Again, I don’t know where you decided to assume that I’m somehow upper middle class or wealthy or anything such as that.

    You aren’t being “stripped of your reproductive rights”. You have every right to get pregnant and crap out a kid.

    You also have every right to deal with the consequences of it. The government and the citizens of this country aren’t responsible for feeding and clothing your child. You are.

    “And spare me the putting off childrearing until an ‘appropriate time’ and ‘everyone can go to college’ routine. Your class privilege is showing. Most people who don’t go to college or don’t finish college do so because of financial concerns (ahem, me!). No rich or middle class mommies and daddies subsidizing their education. And no government grants for them, either (ahem, ME!).”

    Again, what “class privilege”? Just because someone points out truths to you that you aren’t willing to accept doesn’t mean they’re some ivory tower rich person laughing at you. Funny thing, I grew up poor. Everything I have I’ve busted ass and worked hard for.

    So, apparently, all those people I know that got loans for college, that got grants, that got scholarships, they must all have been rich, which is why money for low-income people was given to them, right?

    “Do you have any concept of how difficult, nay IMPOSSIBLE it might be to try and work your way through college on a working-class salary…with children to care for to boot? ”

    Another argument for WAITING to have children, or simply realizing that you can’t have everything you want, and not having them at all.

    “Your arguments are so rigid, so unforgiving, so…cold. There’s no humanity in them. ”

    A fact I’m perfectly aware of. I like that aspect of my personality. I find appeals to logic far more useful than appeals to emotion.

    “I read the whole statement, and it was vague.”

    It specifically refers to the behaviour of the females in question, which would mean the behaviour I spoke of was their behaviour. I’d also made reference to it in other comments.

    “Again, I don’t believe my error was huge. You were vague. And if any of the female, feminist commenters would like to put in their two cents, I’d be happy to hear it. It’s possible that I was the only one who didn’t get the gist. I don’t care what the males have to say, since they’d probably take your side out of spite.”

    It’s a huge error because it changed from you insinuating that I’m a dickhead and sexually undesirable and probably a rapist, to you defending women who rape.

    That’s a huge miscalculation.

    “Well, that’s the best news I’ve heard all day. I find it quite hilarious, though, that you claim I’m a rape apologist. I think you have me confused with yourself.”

    How do you figure? I say “Look, women can rape! They did the exact feminist definition of rape to me”. That makes you an apologist.

    But, I’m sure you’ll rationalize this, by saying a man who harasses a woman into sex is a rapist and an undesirable dickhead, but a woman who harasses a man into bed is just taking control of her own sexuality.

    Right?

    You’ll just have to accept that when someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean they hate all women. I know that’s a hard thing to get past, but there it is.

  41. Dan July 4, 2008 at 8:32 PM #

    I’m going to have to agree in part with what Mr. Thirteen has said earlier. While I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of Deuce’s Law, the word of Deuce’s law goes against the idea of justice. Granted right now the scales of justice are tipped in the patriarchy’s favour, but a radical shift to the other side only oppresses the other half of the population. Essentially, I think, Marxist Feminism is only bound to do what Marxism did for Russia – destroy one ruling class and instituting another. Which I don’t want to see as a human being, let alone a male one. In the end it comes back to Gandhi – “An eye for an eye and the world goes blind.”

  42. Dan July 4, 2008 at 9:12 PM #

    Hold the phone Claire,

    Maternity leave is unpaid in the states? Seriously? That is so fucking ridiculous it caused me to double take when I read it. Denying a woman paid maternity leave here in Canada is against the law. I think the women of America should flock en-masse to Canada as political refugees, it is certain to raise some eyebrows, and if the war resisters are any indication we’ll be happy to have you.

  43. Nine Deuce July 4, 2008 at 10:36 PM #

    Black Thirteen – women do not “crap out” kids.

  44. Black Thirteen July 4, 2008 at 11:30 PM #

    “Denying a woman paid maternity leave here in Canada is against the law. ”

    Canada has an underpopulation problem. Last time I checked, New York City alone had 1/3rd the entire population of all of Canada.

    They offer incentives to get people to spawn.

    In the states, we shouldn’t have to. We don’t need to make it easier for even more people to have kids. We have too many. Way, way less people need to have them.

    “Black Thirteen – women do not “crap out” kids.”

    Yeah, and a lot of the euphemisms we use on a daily basis aren’t entirely accurate when they’re disassembled. So what?

    Considering I lose respect for people that choose to spawn, my language about said vile act will become less than friendly. I cannot help that.

    • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) March 9, 2013 at 2:05 AM #

      No guys I’m pretty sure he actually came out of somethings anus and thinks this is the case for all of humanity. Go back to human bio. If you cared scared of the word vagina.

  45. Dan July 5, 2008 at 4:38 AM #

    Actually Black Thirteen, Canada does not have an underpopulation problem at all. We aren’t crying out for more babies. The birthrate here is pretty low, I think as low as 1.2 children per parent now, and it is a well known fact that as more and more jobs become available, as they undoubtedly will when the current working generation retires, more and more immigrants will come fill those shoes. I wouldn’t dare make the claim that having a low population sitting on a large tract of land is a bad thing, especially when we are going to be taking on more and more immigration as earth’s population bulges.

    No, the reason Canadian women are guaranteed payed maternity leave if because our charter of rights and freedoms states not once, but twice, that it is unlawful to discriminate based upon a person’s gender. our charter also holds the unique virtue of being enshrined in the constitution, and therefore cannot legally be altered.

  46. Black Thirteen July 5, 2008 at 6:55 AM #

    “Actually Black Thirteen, Canada does not have an underpopulation problem at all. ”

    You have 3,854,085 square miles of land.

    You have a population of 33,309,000 people.

    With a population density of 8.3 people per square mile.

    For comparison, NYC has 6,720 square miles in the metro area, with a population of 8,274,527 people, at a density of 27,147 people per square mile.

    Hell, we could fit your entire country’s population, comfortably, into New York state.

    Ergo, Canada is underpopulated. That’s why there are such ridiculous benefits in some places as a year of maternity leave.

    “I wouldn’t dare make the claim that having a low population sitting on a large tract of land is a bad thing, especially when we are going to be taking on more and more immigration as earth’s population bulges.”

    As far as the government is concerned, it’s a bad thing. Low population = low taxes.

    Canada also doesn’t have a huge amount of immigrants.

    “No, the reason Canadian women are guaranteed payed maternity leave if because our charter of rights and freedoms states not once, but twice, that it is unlawful to discriminate based upon a person’s gender.”

    Guaranteed paid maternity leave has what, exactly, to do with gender discrimination?

    Oh, nothing. Unless men were randomly given paid time off equaling that amount of time, while women weren’t.

    Which I doubt.

    In fact, I’d go so far as to say that offering paid maternity leave is discriminating against men, based on their gender.

    That, and I’m sorry, I’m glad I live in the US, then. Because if one of my employees wanted an entire year off of work, and they wanted me to pay them to NOT work for that entire year, because they made the conscious choice to spawn, which is not a disability, illness or anything outside of their control…

    I’d fire them.

    Here, we can do that. An employer doesn’t need a useless employee. They need a productive one. It’s not discrimination for a business to expect it’s workers to work.

    If you’re unable to do your job, you shouldn’t have it.

  47. Claire (CJ) July 5, 2008 at 6:48 PM #

    Dude, will someone please set Black Thirteen straight? I’m a bit busy nursing my toddler at the moment. :)

  48. Sally July 5, 2008 at 7:37 PM #

    *le sigh* I find it so sad whenever a feminist tries to point something important out, everyone who disagrees merely turns the whole discussion into a petty argument in an attempt to render the main point as void because “OMG SHE INSULTED ME SO SHE’S CLEARLY COMPLETELY WRONG!!!! YOU SEE?DO YOU SEE?!?!?!?!?!”

    Not that I’m saying ND has insulted anyone, but you get my point.

    The point of this post is that men get away with rape too much. Yes Black Thirteen, I understand that women also rape men, and I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you, but do you seriously think it’s ok for 94% of men who rape women to face no punishment for their crimes? The women who rape men are in the minority, so we need not to punish men more harshly, but rather focus our attentions on the bigger problem; the men who rape women. The bigger problem needs to be addressed first.

    At first I disagreed with Deuce’s Law, but I’ve taken time to think about it and read all of her posts about it and now think it’s the only way for these men to be punished.

  49. Black Thirteen July 6, 2008 at 12:38 AM #

    “At first I disagreed with Deuce’s Law, but I’ve taken time to think about it and read all of her posts about it and now think it’s the only way for these men to be punished.”

    Well, then since her punishment for it advocates that men be rendered incomplete persons, lose their sexual autonomy, and their ability to reproduce…

    Would an equal punishment be ripping out a woman’s ovaries and permanently sewing her vagina shut?

  50. Nine Deuce July 6, 2008 at 1:04 AM #

    No one is talking about “ripping” anything off or out of anyone. Watch it, your anger is showing. Also, what you’re describing is not an equivalent if you think about it, which I seem to remember having covered before.

  51. Black Thirteen July 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM #

    Sure it’s an equivalent.

    Castrating a man makes him a person that is no longer whole. It removes his ability to have sex, and to procreate.

    Cutting a woman’s ovaries out and permanently sealing her vagina serves the same purpose.

  52. Nine Deuce July 6, 2008 at 1:28 AM #

    But think about the role of women’s sex organs versus that of men’s sex organs in a sexual assault. And think about the hormonal issues. In any case, watch the language. Find the equivalent term for castration, but don’t use the word “rip” anymore, whatever you do.

  53. Black Thirteen July 6, 2008 at 5:08 AM #

    The testes are also rather useful in a hormonal sense.

    They’re analogous to the ovaries. So, if you’re taking his testes, take her ovaries.

    So they both have hormonal issues, as they are both part of the endocrine system.

    Regardless of the role of the organs in sex, without his testes, a man cannot have sex. Ergo, to make an equivalent punishment, you’d have to remove her ovaries and seal her vagina. Then, she would be unable to reproduce, unable to have sex, and have a boned up endocrine system, just like the male.

    What’s your problem with the word rip? You advocate ripping a man’s testicles off.

  54. Black Thirteen July 6, 2008 at 5:08 AM #

    *homologous, even.

  55. Claire (CJ) July 6, 2008 at 6:30 AM #

    Black Thirteen –

    Being punished for having children by being refused gainful employment for the simple act of having one (or more, if one is so inclined) is, in fact, punishment. Not ‘not rewarding’. Punishment. Denying someone the ability to support themselves and their children through gainful employment is discrimination, and punishment. It is a death sentence…especially in a society with no safety net, and no large extended family structures to catch those who fall through the cracks. The old supports are gone. People are dying and living like animals because of it. I’ve seen it. I’ve been there. I’m not far from there now. It’s a terrifying, depressing, demeaning, inhuman way to live. And most humans live this way.

    Denying women gainful employment based on their ability (and choice) to get pregnant and have children is by far the most blatant form of discrimination based on gender there is. Once more proving that the model for the corporate world is based on male needs, to the detriment of women everywhere, and their children. It is us who are punished, for the crime of being women, being able to procreate, and for *gasp* making the choice to. Discrimination. The very definition.

    Sure, they’re not your kids. But so what? You’re a human fucking being, Black Thirteen. Do you have no heart? Where’s your compassion for people who are less fortunate than you? Whatever circumstances led you to rise above your poverty in childhood probably came about by a series of lucky breaks in part, hard work and determination to be sure…but if you’re white, privilege played a huge part as well. Able-bodied and minded, another notch. Straight, another. Conservative, another. White people, whatever their class/abilities in most cases, are taught things as a matter of course that a lot of minorities are not. They are raised with a sense of entitlement and have more connections than minorities. It’s a simple and unfortunate fact borne of centuries of hate, prejudice, and discrimination. Women of all colors suffer due to these factors as well…as do their children.

    Sure, there are people (of all colors and genders) who either don’t want to go college or are unable to finish because the drive isn’t there, but why should they be denied a decent standard of living based on that fact alone? On any fact? Why should any group of human beings (who are not harming other people) be denied a decent life? Why is that acceptable, under any circumstances?

    The leisure of the upper classes (and middle class) are largely dependent on it, that’s why. The people at the top don’t want the people at the bottom to have access to financial betterment. Without a huge underclass of ‘undesirables’ doing the shit work, the big wigs might have to get their hands dirty. Or have to give up some of their precious privilege and status and power. No no, can’t have that. Better to have the bitches and brown people slaving away. Then we don’t have to think about anything but what we’re going to do on Friday, garden parties and collecting records or playing video games. There now, much better. They all deserve to rot anyway. Fuck anyone who isn’t me or people I know/like, why should I care?

    Those who have worked their way up from the bottom (as seems to be your case) are often the worst offenders. You got very, very lucky or had some resources to exploit that many do not, and suddenly everyone around you should be exactly like you and capable of whatever you say they should. A healthy dose of self-hating denial might be at work here…hating the poverty you came from and trying to distance yourself as much as possible…much like self-hating racism on the part of minorities. Being poor is considered shameful and socially taboo, so better to run far far away from your past and shun those who haven’t yet or are unable to get out. Cruel. Just cruel.

    (By the way, in case I was any way unclear in earlier responses…I am white. Working class, poor at this point, but white. My son is mixed [white/Peruvian/Argentinian.)

    Of course my son isn’t a miracle or special to you. He’s not your kid. He is, however, mine. I absolutely expect him to be treated with the same basic respect as anyone else. Discrimination based on age/ability is discrimination, after all. He’s special and a miracle to me. I’m not going to treat him like crap because some people don’t like children. He’s a human being, for fuck’s sake. He’s learning and growing. It’s fun and educational and incredible to watch. It’s not necessarily a miracle, but it’s wonderful to me (and to him).

    Man, I’m eating huge amounts of crow right now…I so used to be where you are, Black Thirteen. I so used to hate children. Used to think they were an annoyance at best and the scourge of the planet at worst. Now…my son is so amazing. He teaches me something about the world and myself every second. He made me a grown-up in a way I never could’ve achieved on my own. I heard people saying stuff like this before I had him and thought, “Yeah, real fucking special. You reproduced. Bravo!”. Still true, but just…qualified by knowing how the other half lives now. And him actually being here is worlds different (and harder, and often terrifying, especially in the face of the mountains of obstacles we face, but still…indescribable. It’s love on steroids with the sound turned up to a billion. It is really fucking cool. :)).

    I don’t really know what to say to someone who honestly thinks that cold, hard logic, bereft of any compassion or emotion, any complexity or depth is preferable to a complete human existence, involving emotion, feeling, kindness, understanding, and a sense of community and responsibility to their fellow human beings. Perhaps you think I voided my pass by Breeding While Poor/Undereducated, and that earns me whatever grief I get, including poverty, starvation, homelessness, even death. I don’t know what to say to that or people who think that way. I guess if I went back in time I wouldn’t know what to say to my former self, either. It’s a sad state of affairs when we have reached a point as a species where we no longer give a fuck about anything but ourselves and our own tiny, relatively insignificant corners of life. It spells our doom.

    Perhaps you think I don’t care about anyone but myself because I had a child. That it was ‘selfish’ of me to breed in a world with so many people…you’d be right, in a way. I’d already had three abortions when I got pregnant with my son. I didn’t want a fourth. I wanted to keep him. I wanted to be a parent. I wanted to know what it was like. I guess that earns me a death warrant, signed by those like you who get to decide my fate by virtue of being higher up on the hierarchy, having made better choices. My punishment being poverty, starvation, homelessness, and death. Less opportunities for my child (if any). Eventual poverty, starvation, homelessness and death for him too. It’s only fair, right? Only fair that we be exterminated for our lack of foresight, our lack of self-discipline, our lack of ability to be like you. To hell with us. Right? We ‘did it to ourselves’. That justifies any and all action and inaction by the government and society at large, whether right or wrong. Ethical or immoral. Compassionate or cruel. We ‘did it to ourselves’…and that makes us shit. Or just people who don’t deserve access to any means whatsoever of living a liveable life. Which means shit. And poverty. And homelessness. And death. Only fair…only ‘logical’.

    Wow.

    Perhaps that is the fate you wish us to have a species…extinction. In general, I do agree the human species a failure, at least thus far. But, the optimist in me sees enough good in our kind worth fighting for. I fight for it by trying to be the best parent I can…modeling compassion, kindness, empathy. Emotional intelligence. By seeing other people no matter what their class or creed or color, as other people, not the enemy. Not less than. Not inhuman annoyances to my all-important daily routine and creature comforts.

    By the way, I’m an atheist. :) I don’t believe in an afterlife or supreme being or higher purpose. I do believe humans should continue to evolve mentally and emotionally, and work towards a world and an existence at peace with each other and the world we inhabit. I’m not sure that’s possible, but I’d rather hope it is and do what I can to help us get there than languish in bitterness, despair, or apathy.

    Child-hating (anyone hating, but really, hating kids is so fucking pointless…it’s like hating people over 35 just for having aged or people with red hair because it’s not your favorite color), cold, apathetic, nihilistic garbage attitude is not going to improve life for any of us. That kind of shit never has and never will. All it does is further push us down the downward spiral, detaching us from each other and making it easier to hurt each other.

    Even if you do only care about your life as long as you’re here to live it, I’m sure that’s not the road you want to head down, either. After all, it doesn’t benefit you. People killing each other off for the sport of it because they can no longer identify with each other is not a world any of us wants to live in.

    Finishing up now. I’ve been deeply upset by your comments most of the day. I still am. It forces me to face a part of myself I don’t like to deal with and dislike remembering. But, it’s there. I remember saying things very similar all those years ago. Now, being where I am, having a child…it feels a thousand miles away. I can’t understand how I ever thought or felt that way, knowing what I do now. I am ashamed of myself, ashamed to have been a part of a philosophy that actively hated on those who have children simply for having them, on those who are poor and have children simply for being and doing both, and generally on other human beings just for the fun of it, or to make myself feel cool or better than others. Huge life regret.

    It is very difficult and depressing to know that there are people out there, like you (and like I used to be), who wish me ill because I am poor and have bred. Who spit on me literally and figuratively for having done so. Who think hateful thoughts and make fun of my family for not being who and what they (think) they are. Who are ethically comfortable with a society that, for all intents and purposes, leaves people like me out in the cold to starve and die.

    Yes, I made the choice to breed while poor. Society makes the choice to discriminate against me based on that, and to make it prohibitively difficult, even utterly impossible to survive based on that. It doesn’t have to be that way, and it shouldn’t be. If you have one shred of human decency in you, you have to know that to be true. Cruelty is not logic. It’s not smart. It’s not sensible. It’s just cruelty. It’s just hatred. It’s inhuman. It’s wrong.

    Perhaps you’ll cross the border someday. Or meet and get to know someone, maybe even fall in love with someone who has a child or is close to one (my boyfriend is navigating this territory now…only child, lifelong child-hater…morphing into the most wonderful step-dad in the world…even he is surprised daily by the depth of love he feels for my son, and the two of them are developing a truly beautiful relationship…ask him a year ago if he’d ever date a woman with a child or care for a child, and he would’ve laughed you out of your shorts. Now, he would adopt my son in a heartbeat in the event his father and I could not care for him. Night and day. Same as me…this shit does happen). Perhaps not. But either way, whatever way, someday I hope you will come to know that whether you want children or not, or ‘approve’ of them or people who have them, they are not horrible creatures designed to make your life more difficult nor their parents…they are just people like you, trying to get along in life, along with their parents. Live and let live. Not live and let die.

    That’s all.

  56. zombie z July 6, 2008 at 7:34 AM #

    I was almost — for a very brief moment — curious what B13 has to say about the fact that maternity leave is also paid (up to a year, I believe) in many countries in Europe; perhaps France has a glaring underpopulation problem that I’m unaware of? And then I remembered that he’s a dickwad.

    Oh, yeah, I used an insult about your genitalia. I also think that you should probably have your manly bits ‘ripped’ off simply for being an asshole, which is an insult about a body part everyone has (most of us just choose to let our words come out the other end).

    9-2, is his bullshit rhetoric about childcare/children/child support/etc enough to consider him an MRA, if the various rape apology soundbites weren’t? It’s not even amusing.

  57. Nine Deuce July 6, 2008 at 3:38 PM #

    Testes produce testosterone, which produces aggression. I used the medical term for removing testicles. In a medical procedure, nothing is ripped out or off.

    Anyway, you are upsetting my feminist readers with your open misogyny, and this is, after all, a feminist blog. You’ll need to cut it out or I won’t approve your comments. I want people to be able to discuss things on this blog without getting bogged down arguing about things that have nothing to do with the post and suffering insults. I know you’ll say I’ve allowed women to insult men here, but guess what? Women have to endure insults and misogyny at every turn. This is supposed to be a place where they don’t, and where they can vent a little about what they do have to endure. If you want to talk about ripping ovaries out and women “crapping out” children, you can do so on any MRA blog and I’m sure no one will take issue. If you want to discuss the issue at hand, go ahead, but just do so civilly.

    I’ve said this many, many times: I don’t deny that women have committed sex abuses. This website is not dedicated to protecting men from women, however. Men commit most rapes, and men raping women is therefore of the greatest concern to me. That a woman has raped a man is terrible, and I am unhappy to hear that anyone has had to suffer such abuse. Nonetheless, that does not invalidate or counter any of my points, because I’ve never made the claim that all men are rapists or that no women have ever raped anyone. I’m not going to go over that again, because we both understand each other and there isn’t a point in doing so.

    As for paid maternity, I’d like to see both men and women get paid time off when a child is born. That would allow both parents to play their proper roles in the birth and raising of children, at least for a short time. As it is, women are expected to provide the bulk of child care, and men generally do not play as large a role in their children’s lives. That is unfortunate for everyone involved, but it is most unfair to mothers, who lose time in the middle of developing their careers because they are expected to stay home to care for children. If men were more likely to do so or to even want to, I’d say they’d deserve paternity leave. There goes your discrimination argument. I think a solution might be to create a more equitable system in which, if men are not going to have to play a bigger role in child care, we at least ask men to compensate women for the fact that they are taking that burden off of men and allowing men to continue their careers unfettered. Men everywhere benefit from the fact that women do the labor of child care. The benefits may be indirect, but they exist. Libertarian types love to pretend we do everything in a vacuum, but we don’t.

    Women who choose to have children do so for a variety of reasons. You may have chosen to forgo sex and intimate relationships, but that isn’t the road to happiness for many people. If a pregnancy occurs, birth control or not, would you recommend abortion? Who are you to make that judgment? You take issue with my wanting to force rapists to undergo medical procedures, but would you force women to? If not, are you saying women deserve to be punished for having sex by suffering the social consequences that come with having a child? Sounds like it. I’m pro-abortion, but that doesn’t mean I’d ever tell a woman who wanted to have a child not to. I take it you would?

  58. Dan July 6, 2008 at 5:05 PM #

    Alot of employers around here, especially those connected with the government do offer payed paternity leave for the father. So that throws your “discimination against men” argument out the window B13.

    The issue isn’t with needing more populous, or the government wanting more tax payers to fill their coffers. There is a fundemental difference in governence between Canada and America. We pay huge taxes and receive alot of social programs, whereas the states to my best of knowledge does the opposite. I’m not saying either is right or wrong, its mearly a difference of philosophy, but all I will say is I really hope our current prime minisiter, who is essentially as republican as George W. doesn’t stay in power for long.

  59. Nine Deuce July 6, 2008 at 5:09 PM #

    I hope so too, Dan. It worries me to see progressive governments sliding to the right in the last few years.

    I think the semi-religious sort of belief that Libertarians and Republicans seem to have in the fairness of free markets (though we’ve never seen such a thing) and the responsibility of every person for her lot in life is pretty ridiculous. It’s counter to the facts of history and the present, and it’s the viewpoint of someone with money who thinks they’ve earned everything on their own and takes no account of the privileges they’ve enjoyed that helped them get there.

  60. Black Thirteen July 6, 2008 at 6:40 PM #

    “Sure, they’re not your kids. But so what? You’re a human fucking being, Black Thirteen. Do you have no heart? Where’s your compassion for people who are less fortunate than you?”

    More or less. No, not really. I have compassion for my cats, and that’s about it.

    Where was the compassion from people more fortunate than me? For the record, I’m not “fortunate”. Nothing was handed to me.

    “Whatever circumstances led you to rise above your poverty in childhood probably came about by a series of lucky breaks in part, hard work and determination to be sure…but if you’re white, privilege played a huge part as well. Able-bodied and minded, another notch. Straight, another. Conservative, another.”

    Luck had nothing to do with it. I’m also not conservative.

    I’m also an outspoken atheist, and I don’t believe in having kids or getting married. There’s a few strikes against me, as per the standard “normal” society looks for.

    “White people, whatever their class/abilities in most cases, are taught things as a matter of course that a lot of minorities are not. They are raised with a sense of entitlement and have more connections than minorities. ”

    Everything I learned I learned because I went and learned it on my own time. School provided me nothing. I can speak Japanese fluently because I spent ages with my head stuffed in books and computer programs. Not because I was “entitled”, or had the lessons handed to me.

    “Sure, there are people (of all colors and genders) who either don’t want to go college or are unable to finish because the drive isn’t there, but why should they be denied a decent standard of living based on that fact alone? On any fact? Why should any group of human beings (who are not harming other people) be denied a decent life? Why is that acceptable, under any circumstances?”

    I didn’t go to college.

    Your arguments miss a lot of points. Have you ever eaten fast food? Gone to a gas station? Then you, by your definition, are “abusing” the “underclass”.

    “Those who have worked their way up from the bottom (as seems to be your case) are often the worst offenders. You got very, very lucky or had some resources to exploit that many do not, and suddenly everyone around you should be exactly like you and capable of whatever you say they should.”

    You seem to be operating under the impression that I’m rich or something.

    I simply gave my life into accumulating financial resources. I avoided dating, because, well, women are expensive for men to have around, and I don’t connect well with people. I never had children, because they’re one of the biggest money pits in the known world. I never got a credit card, I don’t make ridiculous purchases I can’t afford, etcetera.

    “Of course my son isn’t a miracle or special to you. He’s not your kid. He is, however, mine. I absolutely expect him to be treated with the same basic respect as anyone else.”

    Even if it was, it still wouldn’t be a special miracle. It’s a pretty common thing, and not magical. Just a bit of biology.

    I treat people with respect they’ve earned. I also don’t start giving it until they’re adults. Children should be (and I hate to use a cliche) seen and not heard. Preferably, not seen and not heard.

    “Man, I’m eating huge amounts of crow right now…I so used to be where you are, Black Thirteen. I so used to hate children. Used to think they were an annoyance at best and the scourge of the planet at worst.”

    I think even less of them than that. You won’t be the first person to try to tell me I’m wrong, or that I’ll one day think otherwise, and you won’t be the last.

    “He made me a grown-up in a way I never could’ve achieved on my own.”

    Things like that bug me, because, much like the new feminist phenomenon of calling men who don’t marry or have kids “man-child”, it’s insulting. It says you can’t be an adult unless you do what someone else thinks is the proper “adult” thing to do.

    “It’s love on steroids with the sound turned up to a billion. It is really fucking cool. :)).”

    I’ll stick with cats. I’m way too close to 30 for my own comfort, and if I didn’t screw up and have one by now, I’m certainly not going to.

    “I don’t really know what to say to someone who honestly thinks that cold, hard logic, bereft of any compassion or emotion, any complexity or depth is preferable to a complete human existence, involving emotion, feeling, kindness, understanding, and a sense of community and responsibility to their fellow human beings.”

    I’m difficult to deal with. I’ll be the very first person to acknowledge that fact. I don’t try to deny it at all.

    Logic makes sense. 1’s and 0’s, as it were. Dealing with people’s emotions is strenuous, tiresome, and frustrating.

    “It’s a sad state of affairs when we have reached a point as a species where we no longer give a fuck about anything but ourselves and our own tiny, relatively insignificant corners of life. It spells our doom.”

    Not really. Self-interest is the cornerstone of humanity. After all, when all is said and done, who else will be there for you, no matter what, but you?

    “That justifies any and all action and inaction by the government and society at large, whether right or wrong. Ethical or immoral. Compassionate or cruel. We ‘did it to ourselves’…and that makes us shit. Or just people who don’t deserve access to any means whatsoever of living a liveable life. Which means shit. And poverty. And homelessness. And death. Only fair…only ‘logical’.”

    In no other aspect of life do people expect to be bailed out of their mistakes. It’s part of being an adult. When you’re a child, your parents are there to fix what you screwed up, and make everything all better. Some people never exit that mentality, and expect the government to replace mom and dad, and fix all your mistakes, and make everything all better.

    Responsibility is part of adulthood.

    “Perhaps that is the fate you wish us to have a species…extinction. In general, I do agree the human species a failure, at least thus far. But, the optimist in me sees enough good in our kind worth fighting for.”

    I care not, really. I’m 28, and smoke heavily. I’ll be dead by 55, probably earlier. Beyond that, I don’t care if humanity nukes or fucks itself into oblivion.

    It probably will, and I don’t care.

    “I do believe humans should continue to evolve mentally and emotionally, and work towards a world and an existence at peace with each other and the world we inhabit. I’m not sure that’s possible, but I’d rather hope it is and do what I can to help us get there than languish in bitterness, despair, or apathy.”

    Humanity is doomed because it’s the only animal species that can’t achieve any sort of equilibrium with it’s environment. No other animal will breed itself to extinction, or hunt it’s food supply to nothing. Just us. Also in no small part because we’re our only predator. Top of the food chain, and all that.

    There’s nothing despairing or bitter about living as I do.

    “Child-hating (anyone hating, but really, hating kids is so fucking pointless…it’s like hating people over 35 just for having aged or people with red hair because it’s not your favorite color), cold, apathetic, nihilistic garbage attitude is not going to improve life for any of us.”

    I hate children because they are loud, useless, annoying, burdensome, and the people that have them often expect the world to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

    “Even if you do only care about your life as long as you’re here to live it, I’m sure that’s not the road you want to head down, either. After all, it doesn’t benefit you. People killing each other off for the sport of it because they can no longer identify with each other is not a world any of us wants to live in.”

    It is the road I want to head down, thus why I’m on it. It benefits me fine. I’m not suddenly going to repent and recant, and find some nice woman to settle down with and have 2.5 kids and make the world a better place, or something.

    “Finishing up now. I’ve been deeply upset by your comments most of the day. I still am. It forces me to face a part of myself I don’t like to deal with and dislike remembering.”

    To live in the past is to die in the present.

    “Now, being where I am, having a child…it feels a thousand miles away. I can’t understand how I ever thought or felt that way, knowing what I do now. I am ashamed of myself, ashamed to have been a part of a philosophy that actively hated on those who have children simply for having them, on those who are poor and have children simply for being and doing both, and generally on other human beings just for the fun of it, or to make myself feel cool or better than others. Huge life regret.”

    Well, like I said, I’m not going to suddenly recant and impregnate somebody.

    “It is very difficult and depressing to know that there are people out there, like you (and like I used to be), who wish me ill because I am poor and have bred.”

    I don’t actively wish you ill. Too much effort involved in that. I am simply indifferent.

    “Who are ethically comfortable with a society that, for all intents and purposes, leaves people like me out in the cold to starve and die.”

    Life is what you make of it. I hate to be cliche, but everything is the result of the choices you make.

    “Yes, I made the choice to breed while poor. Society makes the choice to discriminate against me based on that, and to make it prohibitively difficult, even utterly impossible to survive based on that.”

    It’s more that society isn’t going to be as forgiving of your mistakes as you want it to be. That it isn’t going to bail you out and lift you up.

    There’s a limited amount of tax dollars floating around.

    “If you have one shred of human decency in you, you have to know that to be true. Cruelty is not logic. It’s not smart. It’s not sensible. It’s just cruelty. It’s just hatred. It’s inhuman. It’s wrong.”

    Cruelty is not logic, no. But logic is often cruel.

    Hatred is an active thing. Allowing people to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences thereof is just adulthood. I don’t need someone making my decisions for me. I stopped being under the control of parents a long time ago.

    “Perhaps you’ll cross the border someday. Or meet and get to know someone, maybe even fall in love with someone who has a child or is close to one (my boyfriend is navigating this territory now…only child, lifelong child-hater…morphing into the most wonderful step-dad in the world…even he is surprised daily by the depth of love he feels for my son, and the two of them are developing a truly beautiful relationship…ask him a year ago if he’d ever date a woman with a child or care for a child, and he would’ve laughed you out of your shorts.”

    No, I won’t. I guarantee you that. I don’t even actively date. The last time I even had a relationship was a year ago. Before that, 4 years.

    I’ve never dated a woman with a child, and would never. Even if I was the dating type, it’s too ridiculous of a situation to navigate.

    When my sister was pregnant (no, she didn’t have it, miscarried), and she stated calling me “Uncle [name]“, I got very displeased with her, and told her in no uncertain terms, that I would never be “Uncle” anybody, and that should she have it, she was not to bring it near me.

    “But either way, whatever way, someday I hope you will come to know that whether you want children or not, or ‘approve’ of them or people who have them, they are not horrible creatures designed to make your life more difficult nor their parents…they are just people like you, trying to get along in life, along with their parents. Live and let live. Not live and let die.”

    Don’t wish such ills upon me.

    The only thing worse would be you wishing actual children directly into my life.

    They might upset you, but I rather enjoy our discussions.

    “Testes produce testosterone, which produces aggression. I used the medical term for removing testicles. In a medical procedure, nothing is ripped out or off.”

    Semantics, though, really.

    Testosterone does more than produce aggression, and you know it. That’d be like me saying that estrogen produces unstable emotions. It’s ridiculously simplistic, and insulting to both genders.

    “Anyway, you are upsetting my feminist readers with your open misogyny, and this is, after all, a feminist blog. You’ll need to cut it out or I won’t approve your comments.”

    I’m afraid you’re confused. Having a differing viewpoint from you does not equal hating all women, which is what “misogyny” means.

    I don’t hate anybody. It’s too much wasted energy.

    “I know you’ll say I’ve allowed women to insult men here, but guess what? Women have to endure insults and misogyny at every turn.”

    Because one suffered it, doesn’t make it right for them to in turn throw it upon someone else.

    “As for paid maternity, I’d like to see both men and women get paid time off when a child is born. That would allow both parents to play their proper roles in the birth and raising of children, at least for a short time. As it is, women are expected to provide the bulk of child care, and men generally do not play as large a role in their children’s lives.”

    What benefit would giving it to men really do?

    The reason the bulk is given to women, is because they carry and birth the offspring, their the ones with hormonal changes that facilitate bonding, they’re the ones physically equipped for the natural form of feeding, etcetera.

    “That is unfortunate for everyone involved, but it is most unfair to mothers, who lose time in the middle of developing their careers because they are expected to stay home to care for children.”

    They could also simply not have them.

    I don’t mean for that to sound so simple, but I cannot think of any other way to put it.

    “If men were more likely to do so or to even want to, I’d say they’d deserve paternity leave. There goes your discrimination argument. I think a solution might be to create a more equitable system in which, if men are not going to have to play a bigger role in child care, we at least ask men to compensate women for the fact that they are taking that burden off of men and allowing men to continue their careers unfettered. Men everywhere benefit from the fact that women do the labor of child care. The benefits may be indirect, but they exist. Libertarian types love to pretend we do everything in a vacuum, but we don’t.”

    Couldn’t one easily say that the compensation is the fact that while those men continue their careers, they’re providing all aspects of life for the woman who is taking care of their child? Houses, cable TV, internet, food, electricity, water…these things are not free.

    “Women who choose to have children do so for a variety of reasons. You may have chosen to forgo sex and intimate relationships, but that isn’t the road to happiness for many people.”

    Well, then some people should really think about their lives. Is that what humanity has come to? That sex is what people require for happiness? They can no longer simply be happy on their own?

    “You take issue with my wanting to force rapists to undergo medical procedures, but would you force women to? ”

    Nope. I advocate licensed parenting. If you need a license to drive, marry, operate a plane or boat, have a fruit stand, or a business, why not to have a child, which has vastly more far-reaching impact than driving a car?

    “If not, are you saying women deserve to be punished for having sex by suffering the social consequences that come with having a child?”

    Nope. I’m simply saying they shouldn’t be rewarded for irresponsibility. For the record, it’s not like men aren’t financially punished for having children they cannot afford. There’s also the huge social stigma of the “deadbeat dad”.

    He doesn’t even have to be an actual deadbeat, just poor.

    Point is, I just don’t believe bad decisions should be rewarded.

    “I’m pro-abortion, but that doesn’t mean I’d ever tell a woman who wanted to have a child not to. I take it you would?”

    Wanting something isn’t a valid reason. I need water to survive. Just water. I *want* Dasani. I don’t *need* it. I just need regular old tap water.

    You can’t always have what you want. That’s one of the earliest life lessons that people are supposed to learn.

    My fingers now hurt from typing all this.

  61. Me July 6, 2008 at 9:46 PM #

    All I got from Claire’s post was,”I want what I want when I want it, and I don’t care if it’s at others’ expense!” So, I still fail to see why I should have to fork out for your poor choice. If you make the choice of having a child you can’t afford, then you should suffer the consequences, as anyone who makes any sort of bad choice does. End of discussion.

  62. Nine Deuce July 6, 2008 at 9:49 PM #

    Come on now, Me. There’s more involved than that. We should be free to have children, since that’s what human beings do, and live in a system in which we aren’t punished for doing so. I kinda think feminism, being about freedom and choice as it is, ought to be about creating a system in which women can be free to have children or not, and not be punished for it either way. Men ought to do their part, and society (that includes business) ought to take account of the unpaid labor that goes into raising the children that will be responsible for bankrolling us when we need them to in the future. We are not all standalone units.

  63. Me July 6, 2008 at 11:35 PM #

    I stand by my earlier statement. Besides, the world certainly doesn’t need any more people on it. Giving people free reign to procreate is only going to lead to more of this nightmare that we currently live in. Every little fuck-trophy that’s born these days only lowers the standard of living for those already here. More people is not the answer, and there is still no excusing the fact that she thinks she’s entitled to something she can’t afford.

  64. Claire (CJ) July 7, 2008 at 12:16 AM #

    Black Thirteen and Me –

    No worries, you are both getting your wish. Both my child and me are suffering. We will continue to suffer, because it seem most people have attitudes similar to yours. Ah well. I’ve earned it, I guess…I’ll take my ‘punishment’ and live with it the best way I can.

    Actually, what you should’ve gotten from my post was that I was lamenting the fact that people’s need to feel superior to one another, or to judge each other into oblivion has officially superceded all else. To the detriment of many. Neither of you care, so rock on with that I guess.

    I hope to some day return to school and earn a degree and make enough money to live. That is my hope. I am trying to find work that can help pay the bills and allow me to spend some time with my son. I will keep trying. That’s all I can do.

    I have fucking tears in my eyes right now, and am absolutely heartbroken at reading what I have from both of you. I’m serious. Judged into oblivion is what I feel. Hey, I’ll even agree that maybe I should’ve had my son earlier or later (but then, he wouldn’t be my son…he’d be another child). But, it didn’t work out that way. It worked out this way. Now I have to try to make something good for both of us…out of basically nothing. In a society that feels and treats me as both of you do…as a disgusting leech who deserves to eat peanut butter and live in a dump for the rest of her life, while everyone more fortunate points and laughs, or spits on us. It is the task of a lifetime (sigh, yes…I know. I Did It To Myself. Don’t worry, I know that better than you ever will, and I will feel bad about it every day for the rest of my life. Feel better now?). Every day I get up, take a deep breath and try to be up for it…but, it’s a heavy burden. Just gotta keep going.

    Black Thirteen, I wasn’t trying to get you to have kids or get married. Do neither if that’s your thing. I was just suggesting that perhaps someday you won’t think of children and people who have them as such lowly inhuman creatures. Then again, maybe not. Rock on with that, too.

    I would never have been given a license to breed, nor would most of the people who currently do breed. At one point I did even consider giving up my son for adoption out of fear for his future. But, I love my son more than I will every love anyone else. I couldn’t give him up. I made the choice to keep trying to make our lives better. Society seems to have no end to ways it can make that difficult for us…which sucks. A lot.

    I don’t enjoy being made out to feel like crap, which is what these ‘discussions’ have led to, to your great pleasure I’m sure. You’ve effectively ‘chastised’ poor, single-parent me and made me feel like the lowest form of life for not being as smart and wonderful as you are. Success! Hope you’re happy.

    Sorry Nine Deuce, I’ll let it drop now. This has gone way way off topic.

    CJ (Claire).

  65. Claire (CJ) July 7, 2008 at 12:19 AM #

    One more –

    Me –

    I didn’t feel ‘entitled to something I couldn’t afford’. I wanted to keep and not abort my baby. I don’t happen to be monied.

    Again, not to worry, I am being severely punished for both. As are many others. The poor and impoverished don’t feel ‘entitled’ to much.

  66. Nine Deuce July 7, 2008 at 12:37 AM #

    You guys can do whatever you want. I gave up on making people stick to the topic of the post they’re commenting on. I would like to see people express their opinions with a little more compassion, however. Pretend you’re discussing things in person or something.

  67. Me July 7, 2008 at 1:41 AM #

    Hey, I’ve made some pretty bad choices, too, so I really don’t have this superiority thing you accuse me of. The difference between you and I is that I don’t expect everyone else to help me pay for my stupidity, and I didn’t whine on endlessly about how hard my life is. I made my bed, and I have to lie in it. You need to do the same.

    • Silent Agony (@DiscordantFlesh) March 9, 2013 at 2:23 AM #

      You will masturbate for your whole life, no one would truly willingly have sex with such a disgustingly inhuman compassionless prick. Go rip your anus out.

  68. Claire (CJ) July 7, 2008 at 3:00 AM #

    Me –

    Gee, thanks.

    I don’t expect anyone to ‘pay for my stupidity’. I expect people to treat me like a person, and not a piece of shit. Big difference.

    Gah, onto a different post.

  69. Black Thirteen July 7, 2008 at 3:05 AM #

    “No worries, you are both getting your wish. Both my child and me are suffering. We will continue to suffer, because it seem most people have attitudes similar to yours. Ah well. I’ve earned it, I guess…I’ll take my ‘punishment’ and live with it the best way I can.”

    I already said I don’t wish ill on you.

    “Black Thirteen, I wasn’t trying to get you to have kids or get married. Do neither if that’s your thing. I was just suggesting that perhaps someday you won’t think of children and people who have them as such lowly inhuman creatures. Then again, maybe not. Rock on with that, too.”

    Fair enough. The whole suggestion about crossing the border/loving someone with a kid seemed to be telling me that you wish I would either have some, or come to like them or something.

    “I don’t enjoy being made out to feel like crap, which is what these ‘discussions’ have led to, to your great pleasure I’m sure. You’ve effectively ‘chastised’ poor, single-parent me and made me feel like the lowest form of life for not being as smart and wonderful as you are. Success! Hope you’re happy.”

    Again, I do not hold my opinions out of some malice. I do not take pleasure in your discomfort.

    I am completely indifferent to it. I am sorry that upsets you, but it’s not just on this topic that I’m like this.

    It’s how I am about most all things, all the time.

    “Again, not to worry, I am being severely punished for both. As are many others. The poor and impoverished don’t feel ‘entitled’ to much.”

    It’s not that you’re being punished. It’s that you’re simply not being rewarded.

    “I would like to see people express their opinions with a little more compassion, however. Pretend you’re discussing things in person or something.”

    I hate to disappoint, but this IS how I speak in person.

    I’m aware that I’m dispassionate, cold, detached, I’ve heard it all before.

  70. Nine Deuce July 7, 2008 at 3:59 AM #

    I don’t particularly like this dickish quasi-objectivism on the subject of child-rearing. I may need to address this topic in a forthcoming post. I’m basically a socialist, meaning I think we all ought to take account of the humanity of others and act accordingly (and that includes providing a decent life for everyone, even if we don’t like their choices – I don’t particularly wanna give my tax dollars to racist redneck drunks, but I’d rather do that than allow anyone to starve).

    Frankly, I’m a little grossed out by hearing human beings being referred to as “fuck-trophies” and things that are “crapped out.” If you want to see women treated like human beings, why doesn’t that extend to kids? Or am I making assumptions that don’t hold?

    I know the world can often turn nice people into misanthropists because I’ve been a bit of one myself here and there, but I think it takes a little bit of self-delusion to talk like that, and I don’t think it’s a healthy, mature, or humane outlook. And, to be honest, it seems a bit like defensive bullshit posturing rather than honest sentiment. I also don’t know that I believe anybody’d be so nasty in person.

    In any case, I don’t think it’s fruitful to continue. I don’t mean to be paternalistic, but whatever.

  71. Black Thirteen July 7, 2008 at 5:20 AM #

    “Frankly, I’m a little grossed out by hearing human beings being referred to as “fuck-trophies” and things that are “crapped out.” If you want to see women treated like human beings, why doesn’t that extend to kids? Or am I making assumptions that don’t hold?”

    It might make me a bad person, but the fuck trophy thing cracked me up.

    It doesn’t extend to kids because kids aren’t adults, basically.

    “I know the world can often turn nice people into misanthropists because I’ve been a bit of one myself here and there, but I think it takes a little bit of self-delusion to talk like that, and I don’t think it’s a healthy, mature, or humane outlook. And, to be honest, it seems a bit like defensive bullshit posturing rather than honest sentiment. I also don’t know that I believe anybody’d be so nasty in person.”

    Well, honestly, I am. I can’t really prove that to you, as we are not local, but this is really how I am in person. I’m very hard to approach, very hard to talk to, and very unfriendly.

    “In any case, I don’t think it’s fruitful to continue. I don’t mean to be paternalistic, but whatever.”

    Debates are entertaining, though.

  72. Nine Deuce July 7, 2008 at 6:19 AM #

    Whatever. This one is over.

  73. Dan July 7, 2008 at 8:36 AM #

    Mr. Thirteen is either a sociopath or very very lonely, most likely a bit of both. I recommend that he go out, have a good time, and find something to give him some shred of optimism towards life. I also recommend his posts stop going through until he lightens up. His comments have hurt and frustrated all of us, and apparently he is ‘completely indifferent’ towards the topic at hand, and as such cannot really contribute to the discussion.

    Also…. he’s a bit of a dickwad.

  74. Nine Deuce July 7, 2008 at 3:34 PM #

    I think I agree. We’ll see. I’m usually reluctant to ban people, but I think things have gotten out of hand on this post.

  75. Black Thirteen July 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM #

    “Mr. Thirteen is either a sociopath or very very lonely, most likely a bit of both. ”

    Nope. Though, I am very much against psychiatry/ology, they’d call it “schizoid personality disorder”.

    Which, for the record, is NOT schizophrenia. The only thing they have in common is the root, “schizos”, which means “to split”.

    Schizophrenia means to split from reality, schizoid personality disorder means to split from people.

    Look it up and it should explain it. Has nothing to do with being a sociopath.

    FYI, Deuce, I come here because I like discussing topics I have interest in.

  76. Me July 7, 2008 at 10:17 PM #

    Please, she isn’t the first single parent I’ve had to give a reality check to. I’m sick to death of spoiled brats who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. It’s not that I’m treating her like a piece of shit, it’s that I simply don’t believe that she warrants any special treatment because she fucked her life up. She obviously refuses to see herself as anything but some sort of helpless victim, and that’s bullshit. I’ll say it again: You made the choice, you deal with the consequences. That’s adult thing to do, so suck it up.

    And Nine, I’m disappointed that an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself would support such shit, and that you have the nerve to tell me that my outlook isn’t “healthy, mature, or humane”. SHE is the one whose outlook is screwed up, not me. I certainly didn’t make this society, but this is what we’re stuck with, and it’s not right for people like her to expect others to bail her out of her mistakes. Like I said, I’ve made some poor choices in my life, and I have to live with what I’ve done, so does she and everyone else.

  77. Nine Deuce July 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM #

    Me – I fully understand what you are saying, but I’m of the opinion that the goal ought to be to create a better situation, not to harp on people having a hard time within the current one. Basically, this is how I… uh… roll: I give people who are hurting other people shit, and I have compassion for people who aren’t. You might wanna argue that Claire is hurting you by wishing she and her son had better options in life, or that she’d be hurting you if the government took some of your money to give to her, but that’s pretty myopic. We all benefit in indirect ways from the existence of others, and we aren’t each individual cosmos with no relation to each other. Pretending otherwise is selfish and pretty foolish.

  78. Me July 8, 2008 at 12:50 AM #

    I understand she’s having a hard time, and so was I when I fucked my life up. I basically know what’s she’s dealing with. Hell, I still live in a dump, and eat ramen noodles on a regular basis. I wish I had better options in life, too, but it’s one thing to wish for better, and it’s another to expect a handout. I’ve been telling you, that is where I have the problem. Her whiny, “I’m a victim, and I demand compensation” routine is not going to win her many supporters, especially since, in this society, having a child is a luxury, not a need, plus we have massive overpopulation regardless. We all can’t have everything we want in life. That is the truth, wether you and Claire want to see that or not. However, as you mentioned, we can work toward better. I’m the first one to agree that the way things are, the “status quo”, fucking sucks. That’s why I read your blog. There’s so much out there that could be better…less greed, less hate, less waste, less wars, politicians that actually work for good, and not evil, not having to slave away long hours a shit job just put a roof over our heads, and so on. I guess I just see all of this shit in life, and that’s why I can’t stand the rest of humanity any longer. It’s overwhelming me, and there’s no place I can go to escape. I shouldn’t try for escape, but I’ve found that most people just won’t wake the fuck up, and do something, ANYthing, to help make it all better. They don’t care, or they can’t be bothered. They just keep going through the motions, because baby needs new shoes, or they have a mortgage to pay, whatever. At this point, it all seems hopeless to me. I see people who are basically dead inside. I meet people who are vampires. Can they even be saved? What can we do about this life, other than complain and write about it? Our grievances aren’t even being heard; the people in power turn a deaf ear, because real change doesn’t suit them. How do we bring about real change?

  79. psych July 8, 2008 at 7:12 AM #

    Jeez, Claire. How dare you make decisions about whether or not to have a child without consulting “Me” first in order to be 100% certain that it is in line with all their beliefs? Accept your punishment as penance for your crime. Your kid, too.

  80. Nine Deuce July 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM #

    Comments on this post are closed unless they deal with the subject of rape.

  81. Screaming Lemur July 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM #

    Okay, how about… I agree with Deuce’s Law. I think it would be a refreshing change to see men actually, I don’t know, held accountable and punished for raping women? Simple. To the point.
    Also, Claire, you seem really courageous.
    And B13 and Me both seem like assholes. Even I’m not that heartless, and I’ve been called a ‘hopeless cynic’ more than once.
    But Goddess, I had no idea that the percentage of rape convictions was so tiny. Do we just not matter at all? Obviously we need a change; as someone who didn’t report my rape either, I’d vote for Deuce’s Law.

  82. Amber September 24, 2009 at 3:45 AM #

    I just wanted to say, Nine, you are FANTASTIC! I am a woman who suffers from extreme depression and hopelessness as a result of this society, and reading your blogs, your theories, your ideas, and your DEFENSE of women really inspires me. I find it tough to be sexual with a man, because I am always wondering, because I am not “performing” like Jenna Jameson, is he disappointed? Or I get bummed out because, I don’t look like the Hooters girl in the beer commercials….so am I unworthy of affection? Or just things like that in general. It’s sickening how men make me and so many others feel. And I am not remotely attracted to women. So it’s a no-win situation lol. So, thank you for dedicating so much of your time to this blog. It truly does help women who feel stuck and powerless. And to those of you who attempt to slam this woman…puh-lease! She is smart as a whip and just way way owns every time, so give it up. You won’t beat her. Keep up the fantastic work Nine, I really appreciate your insight and your inspiring words :)

    • Nine Deuce September 24, 2009 at 4:06 AM #

      Thanks! That was a really nice compliment.

  83. Imaginary September 28, 2009 at 11:53 AM #

    I don’t care what the others say, Deuce’s Law would work; it would not oppress men, not by a long shot. Oppression and discrimination are two different things MRAsses. Oppression keeps you in your place; you cannot move. Discrimination is a single act that prevents you from moving in a specific direction. Discrimination is a wire to oppression’s bird cage.

    Nine, you’re brilliant. Thank you for giving me even the tiniest bit of hope.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tidbits « Editorializing the Editors - July 4, 2008

    [...] Deuce talks about [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 488 other followers