Last week the world witnessed a historic event. A Voice for Men’s first international men’s issues conference successfully brought together men’s issues and men’s rights activists and advocates around the world. Despite death threats, protests and last minute venue changes AVfM and the men’s rights movement persevered.
The dream was realized.
By the end of our short stay, we’d forged both friendships and memories, but most importantly we opened a dialogue between the sexes.
AVfM founder Paul Elam will join us for the first half of the show to discuss the conference. This will be followed by us, the badgers answering your questions about the conference! Please place your questions in the comment section of this video.
And remember folks! Keep Calm and Badger on!
If you’re interested in any fundraiser merchandise we do have left overs that we will be offering as rewards for signing up as a patreon. (Search for “honey badger radio.”)
As always the show will be available for download after the live broadcast at:
www.honeybadgerbrigade.com
- Honey Badger Radio: Zoe Quinn and feminist mean girls - August 21, 2014
- Honey Badger Radio: Femen, Freedom and Women against Feminism - July 24, 2014
- Honey Badger Radio: Veteran Mental Health - July 17, 2014
by 
What a family picture.
Would you believe I nearly choked when I saw all the heavyweights together in that photo upon entering this site just now?
Kind of, well, almost warmed the heart, really…
In all seriousness, great to see you in one big place together. When are you going to join up again? Hopefully when you’ve recovered from the travel in this one.
Also, the Zapped review…
It’s hardly surprising. The combination of “you go grrl!” obnoxiousness and “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!” means this is common fare.
Although how much of this attitude is spawned by fathers? The feckless, incestuous, self-worshipping doters who aggressively (sometimes violently) demand such obeisance for princess. How many of them will watch with their daughter, full of the twin ideas that this is _right_ and that the would should be _controlled_ for their fantastic progeny, along with anger at the slings and arrows their girl must put up with by existing?
http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/
I have to ask/comment, in light of that article:
1) Did you choose Detroit for the reasons enumerated there? Because I see Detroit as a symbol of white flight and NAFTA, not “men’s flagging influence”–say what?
But is that what the organizers were thinking?
2) I think the quoting of Brendan Rex by name was telling. Sexual predation is something women intimately understand. He was the only man in the article that got to tell his story without any editing, respectfully.
As I said in the other threads, I think this is something most women DO understand.
3) Was there REALLY a slide show of selfies? Oh, please no.
That is awful. Just. Plain. Awful. Whose idea was that? (And have you purged them yet?)
4) Stefan Molyneux says mothers cause boys to be violent? Are we going back to Freud now? Because a lot of the stuff Freud said, isn’t exactly GOOD for your side, you know? Jesus H. Christ.
So Paul Elam was an addiction counselor? I take it he doesn’t believe addiction is heritable (as many addiction counselors do)? Because assigning blame to mothers for their children’s addictions, due to their inferior mothering? That is some very very very very misogynist shit.
Glad I missed the conference, I would have started yelling by this time. This TIME lady is nicer than me.
5) “Still, being surrounded by men who belly-laughed at rape jokes and pinned evil elements of human nature wholesale on women was emotionally taxing at best and self-destructive at worst. Once, during a particularly upsetting segment of the program, I had to excuse myself from the auditorium to seek refuge on the bug-filled bank of Lake St. Clair.”
Much nicer than me.
6) “In the post, Elam called me a “low rent hack” who “practiced journalistic scumtardery,” a “liar and a bigot [who] will be exposed.” He titled the post “An Amazing, Amazing Conference, Even With the Stink of Jessica Roy in the Air.” Those who tweeted at me following the publication of the post minced fewer words. (stuff tweeted at her, caution NSFW: https://twitter.com/bobloblaw1717/status/483689477601099776)
It seemed the perfect example of the fact that though the movement was attempting to put a polite face on in public, they still continue to harass and intimidate online. (Though they adopted similarly skeptical attitudes, none of the male reporters who tweeted or wrote about the event were subject to similar treatment.)” (examples include links in her article)
Shame on Paul for dishing it out daily, but not being able to take it right back. So, is this what happens to critics of men’s rights? Getting called a cunt. Right.
Nothing new under the sun.
And PS: disabled people have politely asked we not use words with “tard” in them. Some of them are men, too. Really.
7) “When you talk to someone like 68-year-old Steve DeLuca, the legitimate need to remedy some of the issues raised by men’s-rights activists becomes more evident. A Vietnam veteran who was injured in combat, DeLuca spoke movingly to me about the two brothers he lost to suicide, and the unfathomable toll the high suicide rate among men can take. There are men out there, like DeLuca and Brendan Rex, who have a real stake in the movement’s success. The paranoia and vitriol of its leaders can’t possibly do anything for them.”
I agree. I worry about men too, or I would not be here.
But blaming mothers and lady-journalists and Miley Cyrus’ ass, is simply not the way to do this.
I’m glad you all had fun. I love Detroit! (my father worked for GM)
But next time, leave out the detritus?
Personal question:
Typhon, I notice in one of those photos that you don’t wear a wedding ring. Are you no longer married? Or are you one of those women who reject wedding rings as patriarchal?
Just wondered. (I’ve had to answer for mine in photos, too. I am supposed to reject wedding rings as patriarchal, but I’m a bad girl, as you see.)
“But next time, leave out the detritus?”
Yeah, I agree. This conference could’ve been a major coup for the MRM. In many ways what was said doesn’t matter, they just needed to get through the conference without incident. But they couldn’t even do that.
You do not attack the journalists covering your event. If someone attending the conference tweets insults at her you need to disavow immediately. OF COURSE she was going to smear the conference, that’s a given. But you do not give them ammunition by making yourselves look like unprofessional jackass’s.
The tactic adopted by the MRM so far (using inflammatory language to draw people to read what are, if you look past the tone, reasonable points) was fine, and probably the best strategy to take in light of the fact that they were going to be attacked anyway. At a conference though, that tactic just does not work, mainly because after the journalists misrepresent it you cannot point to what you said and go: “Look, it says right there that I was pointing out a double standard”. Sure there’re videos, but people don’t watch hour long videos of a lecture. For damage control purposes they need accurate transcripts of these talks up on their website asap.
” Because I see Detroit as a symbol of white flight and NAFTA, not “men’s flagging influence”–say what? ”
De-industrialization is behind all of that, all three. And de-industrialization in the US has been driven by globalization, a prime example of apexuality. It is a prime example of how the Patriarchy quite clearly does not take care of men.
I don’t know about Typhon, but I take off my (very hard-won) wedding ring any time I am doing anything that might harm it or where it can trap moisture – yard work, dish washing – and often forget to put it back on.
Daisy, in case you don’t see this over at the open thread, here’s something you will enjoy reading very, very much in reference to identity politics.
http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/
@ Daisy
Mothers do cause dysfunction. Even feminists admit to this when they say that men’s rights activists have “mommy issues.”
As for my wedding ring, my skin reacts to metal when I wear it. My husband doesn’t wear his either. But we spend so little time apart that wearing one becomes a moot point.
No, I don’t reject wedding rings because they’re “patriarchal.”
The reality is that the press cherry picked what it wanted from the conference.
“They still continue to harass and intimidate online.”
You mean both sides do(at best)? I’ll remind you we have a screen shot of a death threat directed (at least by association) at Kristal prior to the conference:
http://www.fundanything.com/en/campaigns/honey-badger-bring-it-campaign
I have also received death threats as well as slurs, insults, wishes that I would be raped and contemptuous “psychoanalyzing” from the feminist camp. (And now from the main stream media.)
Do I personally agree with A Voice for Men’s bombastic style? No. But I also recognize it’s actually more moderate when compared to the sleazy, vicious, anti-male norm of the main stream media.
Would anyone get up in arms if the Times reporter called Elam a prick? I doubt it would even register as a sexist slur.
“Being surrounded by men who belly-laughed at rape jokes”
From a group of people who are expecting others to consider Valerie Solanis’ work “satire”, this is rich.
Its spelled Solanas.
What Adiabat said.
You are aware that Futrelle has been tweeting Stefan Molyneux crackpot quotes since the conference? Apparently, there is a never-ending stream. WHERE did you find this person, under a rock?
Typhon Blue: Mothers do cause dysfunction.
Um, Molyneux didn’t merely use the tepid overused Dr Phil-word DYSFUNCTION, he specifically blamed inferior mothering for: “war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases”— and yes, that is a pretty amazing laundry list of evils to ascribe solely to mothers.
No, people are responsible for themselves. Their mommies do not force them to do anything. Their mommies did not force them to be addicts or sleep around. Stop blaming mommy! Christ, are we back in John Updike’s 50s suburbs, reflexively blaming women for everything?
And with Stefan Molyneux’s rantings and ravings, you have just given the media permission to ignore everything you say. And they will.
Are you serious, with that guy?
Do you also believe unmarried women are “abusive” for keeping their own babies, as Molyneux does?
Just wondering how far you take this stuff, Honey Badger crew.
Gingko, I did see that a couple of days ago, and I tweeted it… GMTA. 🙂
@ Daisy
“You are aware that Futrelle has been tweeting Stefan Molyneux crackpot quotes since the conference?”
I’m aware that Futrelle is not a reliable source.
“Christ, are we back in John Updike’s 50s suburbs, reflexively blaming women for everything?”
When men have 50% of the automatic custody, then they can have 50% of the blame.
“And with Stefan Molyneux’s rantings and ravings, you have just given the media permission to ignore everything you say. And they will.”
We’ll see.
“Just wondering how far you take this stuff, Honey Badger crew.”
I think I speak for all of us–that is Rachel, Jess, Kristal, Hannah, Karen and now Monica–when I say as far as it takes.
May I ask – Monica? Will she be on the show soon?
Daisy: I think what’s pissing me off about Molyneux is that there’s a grain of truth in what he’s saying. This conference should’ve seen an attempt to roll back on the rhetoric but it seems like they are stuck with the same old tone. Like I said before this tactic has been very successful for them but at some point they’ve got to rein it in to get to the next level of advocacy.
You’re right when you say “No, people are responsible for themselves. Their mommies do not force them to do anything. Their mommies did not force them to be addicts or sleep around” but when looking at the stats you can see the correlation between single parents and negative outcomes for children. If we can see this correlation then the sensible approach would be for society to discourage single parenthood. This should be done two ways: one through easily available abortions and contraception, and two through making *choosing* to be a single parent socially unacceptable.
We can’t morally withdraw child benefits due to the welfare of the child, but we can recognise that a woman bringing a child into the world that she cannot look after without state aid, knowing that the state won’t let the child suffer, is wrong. I think the Public Story wrt single mothers needs to change.
They won’t. Feminists are obsessed with the MRM, and there are many feminists with either influence or directly involved in the media. AVFM isn’t lying when they say that feminists have been the greatest recruiter for the MRM.
When I was first making my mind up about AVFM feminists would send me to articles saying how horrible they are. However when I checked them out I found that they were either satire of something a feminist said, or a reasonable point hidden behind inflammatory language designed to get feminists to link to it. And while I’m not an MRA due to my opinion of single sex advocacy, I am sympathetic towards the MRM, mainly due to the behaviour and claims of feminists. To be frank, I don’t like being lied to, and feminists lie a lot in their attempts to smear the MRM.
“And while I’m not an MRA due to my opinion of single sex advocacy,”
Don’t let the name fool you, although I find it limiting too. A truly gender egalitarian movement – “A woman’s place is in a coal mine!” – is advocacy for everyone regardless of gender.
Also, Adiabat I think the MRM will have to give way eventually to the egalitarians, but this is when the first greatest hurdle is surmounted – the identity-politicking fascists of the post-modernist nightmare we’ve been stuck with. Once name calling becomes too weak to have as much impact, it is then you’ll be able to say that no matter what label anyone carries, what their attitudes and ideas on specific things as well as their actions will become the base operator of society and argument.
Also, the MRM does do one very good thing in my mind with respect to egalitarians – it takes the heat of them a bit. Now, instead of getting called “patriarchal shitheads” you actually get a great deal more people showing that very interest in what you say. So at least in that I’m glad; nothing is more dispiriting than seeing people like yourself, Warren Farrell, SYABM, Daisy Deadhead and so many others being buried under the most unbelievable venom and vituperation for some of the most anodyne and Socratically honest statements and questions that can be made in any way upon the topic of gender.
“you have just given the media permission to ignore everything you say. And they will.”
Streisand effect says otherwise.
Controversy=page views= ad revenue.
That’s how journalism works in the new millenium.
I love how it’s a problem all of a sudden when women are collectively spoken of the way men have been collectively spoken of for decades.
I see I didn’t get an answer, and I waited…
Here is the unanswered question again:
Do you also believe unmarried women are “abusive” for keeping their own babies, as Molyneux does?
Just wondering how far you take this stuff, Honey Badger crew.
And you proudly reply, “as far as it takes”.
So I guess you DID answer.
So, lets cut to the chase: What laws are you planning to enact to fight this “abuse”–because it actually used to be the law to take babies away from unmarried women. You are saying this is a good idea, as far as it takes. The Catholic church once taught this very same thing; you’ve undoubtedly heard of the Magdalene laundries? I take it you think that was a good idea? What other ideas do the Honey Badger crew advise to take unmarried women’s children away from them, due to this “abuse”? I mean, if you really believe it is abuse, what plans do you have to rectify this situation? Pressing charges of “child abuse” against all unmarried mothers? (I’m curious–what if the father refuses to marry them, do they still have to do time?)
So, is this about forced abortion, as in China, or is this about Newt Gingrich’s warmed-over 90s ideas (which even he doesn’t talk about anymore) about bringing back orphanages? Are you Honey Badger girls planning to adopt some of these babies yourselves? (It seems only fair… I ask the “pro-lifers” this question too.)
As far as it takes. And what types of jail terms are you proposing for these fallen, evil adulteresses?
And none for the fathers, right?
How is this different from the 19th century?
“As far as it takes”. Got it. I’ll be quoting you on that.
Adiabat, when you make single parenthood (and single motherhood seems to be the only “single parenthood” that Molyneux is concerned with) a crime or “socially unacceptable”–then you also ignore that in some communities it has become a norm, and there are good political and historical reasons for that. The black family was weakened for generations, as they were torn apart and SOLD for profit. The male of the family was usually the first to go, since he could do hard work. The women learned to get by and depend on each other. Single parenthood was not a big stigma in the US black community for this reason; people knew the reason for the weakening of the black family, and the infamous “Moynihan report” reflected white guilt for this situation and an attempt to come to terms with it. Badly.
But you can’t tear a community apart and then cross your arms disapprovingly at the results of centuries of impoverishment and degradation. There is a reason that black families have always felt under siege: THEY HAVE BEEN UNDER SIEGE FOR REAL. They will not take your “make it socially unacceptable” rhetoric lightly.
How do you make something “socially unacceptable” that white people CAUSED in the first place? How hypocritical and dishonest is that.
African Americans do not want to hear our opinions of what they should do with their families. Period.
And if blacks can have the “freedom” to fashion their own families, say whites, why can’t we? That is the way I saw the situation evolve in MY part of the world.
“but we can recognise that a woman bringing a child into the world that she cannot look after without state aid, knowing that the state won’t let the child suffer, is wrong.”
That term, “State aid”. I take issue with it. Do you count farm subsidies and corporate subsidies? I don’t want to support rich people’s babies either, but they have it rigged so they can legally pick our pockets and NOT call it “state aid”–so there is my problem with that.
Technically, I agree. But what is causing the issue now? The entire culture, telling everyone they can do whatever they want with no repercussions, the same thing currently poisoning the planet. (I just read Margaret Atwood’s fabulous “MaddAddam”– so global warming is on my mind big time…) The same thing would be necessary to stop global warming; a huge CULTURAL change, will be needed if we are going to head this off. I am unsure how to approach it, but I know jailing women and taking their babies away, as far as it takes, is not the way to do it. I hope you agree.
What pisses me off about Molyneux is that he puts this (surprise!) off on women. Women do not make babies by themselves. Really. And about that cultural change I mentioned, are men ready to start um, limiting themselves again? Because unbridled sexual access to women would also need to be curtailed, to stop having so many babies out of wedlock… it isn’t ALL up to women to keep their panties pulled up, you know.
or a reasonable point hidden behind inflammatory language designed to get feminists to link to it.
I have recently been fried a few times on Tumblr, by some very nasty feminists, who do not understand subtlety. They literally believe I have said the opposite of what I have said, on several occasions. I am not sure why, since you guys seem to understand me. (not sure if its willful or not–I actually am starting to believe its a problem w/reading comprehension due to too much emotion, just like StormfrOnters or fundies) But I can tell you: all they see is the inflammatory language. Its like they see RED and then can’t go beyond, can’t get any point that uses some term they don’t like or attempts to measure the good and bad in something. (Like above, I gave you my deep misgivings, then said that in some sense I agree with you… that kind of thing seems to be TOO MUCH for them to comprehend.)
In light of this, the inflammatory language should only be used when you can’t get attention ANY OTHER WAY, but should be curbed the rest of the time, and stick to facts and stats and that shit. But what has happened (and I was a Yippie* okay, so I GET IT TOTALLY) is that now the MRM has come to DEPEND on the inflammatory rhetoric and it is starting to define them, the way Yippies had to get more and more outrageous.
Its painting oneself into a corner. It is not a good outcome, and will cause more splits and factions than is needed or desired.
*someone added me to the Yippies Wikipedia page! I was pretty surprised to see me there. 🙂
DaisyDeadhead: The main flaw I can see with you argument regarding black communities is that similar communities are seen in many different countries with different demographics and without that particular history. Therefore it seems like the situation is less to do with race, and associated US history, and more with the fact that they are poor, failing, communities. In the UK for example the strongest family units are seen in minority communities, as evidenced by the response of the Turkish community rallying together during the London riots.
“That term, “State aid”. I take issue with it.”
These women would be unable to care for their children without aid from the state, so ‘state aid’ is a valid term. Sure we could wrap it up in nice language and call it “assistance” or “benefit”, but part of what I’m arguing is that we shouldn’t do that. It is aid that they get because they decided to have a child that they can’t care for. Part of discouraging people from making that choice is to attach stigma to it. (And of course farm subsidies and corporate subsidies are state aid. I’m not sure why you’d think I wouldn’t consider them to be).
You’re right when you say what is needed is a cultural change, and I agree that jailing women will just make things worse, as would orphanages or other state intervention. A cultural change is needed to make it socially unacceptable to have children they can’t look after. But that cultural change will not happen as long as we mollycoddle single parents with nice terms for their handouts, or we praise how “brave” and “hard done to” they are. To discourage it we need to discourage it. That means disapproving of their decision, and making it known that society disapproves of their decision.
“What pisses me off about Molyneux is that he puts this (surprise!) off on women.”
Her body her choice, right? Less tritely, while I can agree that falling pregnant is the equal responsibility of both the man and the woman, men have zero say on *continuing* the pregnancy, and rightly so (I’m not just referring to abortion, but also to things like the morning after pill). What this means though, logically, and considering that responsibility corresponds to rights, is that the woman has a greater responsibility for the continued pregnancy of the child. She has options to end the pregnancy, he doesn’t. He has absolutely no power so why should he have equal responsibility?
In many ways this is an unintended side-effect of abortion campaigning, and the disparity of responsibility is something that will need to be faced at some point.
As for the MRM, I suspect that groups such as AMIS, ManKind and Survivors Manchester will eventually take over the debate, after they’ve secured a ‘beachead’ in the discussion. I also suspect that the MRM knows this and this is their aim.
DDH,”
Adiabat, when you make single parenthood (and single motherhood seems to be the only “single parenthood” that Molyneux is concerned with) a crime or “socially unacceptable”–then you also ignore that in some communities it has become a norm, and there are good political and historical reasons for that.”
Yes, and those causes were evil. Evil. Those causes were the systematic destruction of black men for the purpose of keeping the entire community as a helot class for manual labor. This had the effect of removing black men for those communities – either directly in prison>slave labor schemes or else in economic conditions that drove men far from home to find work.
That norm arose as an accommodation to a dysfunctional environment, and such accommodations are necessarily dysfunctional.
And quite a lot of this applies in poor white communities in the US too.
“That term, “State aid”. I take issue with it. Do you count farm subsidies and corporate subsidies?”
I damn sure do. I also count enforcement efforts that act as price support systems that have made the drug cartels fabulously wealthy. I count federal water projects that have turned California into an agricultural colony for foreign investors (New York) and raped the water out of the Sierra drainage. (Although Mother Nature is stepping in to destroy that business model.) Mind you, I am in favor of a lot of this state aid, maybe not these particular examples, but we have to remember that our whole system relies heavily on this kind of government action.
“But I can tell you: all they see is the inflammatory language. Its like they see RED and then can’t go beyond, can’t get any point that uses some term they don’t like or attempts to measure the good and bad in something.”
This is taking a page right out of Sun Zi. He has a run where he tells how to manipulate your opponent into defeat. He says that if he is prone to anger, antagonize him. In this instance this provokes the displays you are talking about. These displays will have the unavoidable effect of discrediting these people to the public when they are quoted – and believe me, they are quoted and widely. Go read SYABM who regularly showcases their bigotry and prevarications.
This will leave sane feminists with a choice – side with the Tumblrfems by defending them and assist in discrediting feminism in general, or denouncing them as anti-feminist and essentially agreeing with MRAs, at least on these specific issues.
“I am not sure why, since you guys seem to understand me.”
That’s because you and everyone else here are interested in dialog. It’s not like it’s some feat of tolerance to engage with you. You make it pretty easy.
DaisyDeadhead are you saying that mothers have no influence on their son’s lives?
Hey Kristal! Welcome! heard lots about you, glad to see you here?
That’s not what Daisy is saying, I don’t think. I think she is just on the look out for the tendency to blame mothers for everything.
Kristal, where did I say THAT? (and what does *that* have to do with anything we are discussing here?) Try to stay on topic please.
Here is my question again:
Do you also believe unmarried women are “abusive” for keeping their own babies, as Molyneux does?
Just wondering how far you take this stuff, Honey Badger crew.
And Typhon enthusiastically replied: As far as it takes.
Its been two weeks… and I have given Typhon every opportunity to clarify what she means by this cryptic reply, and she is deliberately ignoring any follow-up discussion. She has ignored all of my questions, which were 100% serious questions. She seems to thinks the fate of unmarried mothers (about one third of all mothers at the present time) isn’t anything to worry about; the question is clearly beneath her. (And then, they wonder why people think MRAs ain’t nice. Get a clue.)
We are talking about prospective jail terms for women who commit “child abuse” against their children by being unmarried. This is what the speaker at the conference believes, and I am asking everyone here, and specifically Typhon, if they agree with him.
Since Typhon apparently does, I am asking her: If women are committing CHILD ABUSE (a very specific legal term) for having children outside of marriage, what does she propose as the punishment?
Taking the children away and putting them in foster care, the usual sentence for child abuse?
Jail terms? And how long will these terms be?
And will only women serve these terms? Even if they would LIKE to be married to their baby’s fathers and the men refused to get married?
I want details. Not hit and run rhetorical bullshit. Ideas have consequences. What are the consequences going to be?
Otherwise, is this all CRAP, as I suspect? Does that mean we don’t have to listen to the rest of this deliberately-inflammatory MRA crap then? It isn’t meant to be taken seriously, its just for razzle-dazzle effect and to get media attention and retweets?
Oh, okay… see, I thought MRAs had actual lists of grievances. Talking shit like this is GUARANTEED not to get any of those issues taken seriously.
Still waiting for a serious reply.
(Just curious: Why bother to have a big conference and advance all of these ideas if you are afraid to talk about the nuts & bolts of how to actually carry them out?)
Hey Gingko, did you guys see this shit?
https://bigotwatcher.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/trolls-attack-13-year-old-boy/
Tl:DR- Thirteen year old kid makes comments regarding comedians and rape jokes, then a bunch of 20-30ish year old men and women proceed to post pictures from his facebook, threaten him with violence, and make comments about his genitals. Drama further ensues when one of the women involved becomes hysterical (and yes I’m using *that* word on purpose) when people call her out on her shit (she commented on the kid’s dick size) and claims she’s the victim being harrassed and a completely innocent party.
Daisy, typhon is off doing other stuff. she hardly ever comments here. I don’t give a fuck about Molyneux and don’t know or care who he is. This is what I think about single mothers:
Single mothers who hide their pregnancies from the fathers, who adopt these kids out without letting the fathers know anything about or against their wishes when they do know – and this has happened countless times – they are sociopathic monsters.
Single mothers who bear their children against the express wishes of the fathers, who deny them their right to choose, should have the entire financial responsible of parenting those children – and where that will, WILL, impose poverty on the child – no one has that right. The community has a responsibility to that child to step.
Single mothers who conceive their children by raping their fathers – quite typically boys, so this is rape of a child -are criminals, they should be jailed for rape and if the father does not want the child, the child should be put up for adoption immediately. The rapist’s feelings count for nothing. Instead the rapists quite often go free and collect CS from their RAPE VICTIMS.
Let’s get one thing very clear – it is fatherhood and not motherhood that is continually and habitually low-rated and threatened by law, policy and custom.
For the record, jailing that woman in Tennessee is just stupid and cruel, as stupid and cruel as putting men too poor to pay CS in debtor’s prison, which you will agree is a much more widespread problem. And by the way, in reference to that woman, I don’t think it’s any accident that it’s happening to a poor black woman, and I have no doubt they would do this to a poor white woman just as readily. I cannot imagine Tennessee even considering doing that to a Natalee Holloway look-alike.
However there is something else to this. Here’s a good treatment of that question: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/18/the-new-battle-over-reproductive-rights.html
In other words, what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
I want to make clear that I deplore the over-valuation of motherhood that exaggerates it to the point of this kind of madness:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/ross_douthats_pro_family_nonsense_poverty_is_a_bigger_threat_than_helicopter_parenting/
More of the same:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/20/the_day_i_was_nearly_arrested_for_having_an_autistic_son/
And this one pulls a lot of this together, about how we are arresting parents all over suddenly this summer:
http://theweek.com/article/index/265010/why-are-so-many-parents-being-arrested
Excellent links, Gingko thanks.
I think most of you live in very liberal areas, and that is the reason for the disconnect I have with many of you. We simply *can’t afford* to attack feminism here. They are trying to roll back abortion rights as we speak. Canadians and others have no such fears.
For example: We are having an anti-kkk rally today… since kkk organizing is increasing in Oconee County http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/16/3566946/ku-klux-klan-hands-out-candy-in.html
and the kkk is having their own rally in Abbeville today. http://www.wyff4.com/news/group-announces-kkk-rally-at-upstate-headquarters/25876262
We are still dealing with the basics. We don’t have the option of giving a single inch. All progressives are our friends here, we are united. We can’t afford the luxury of alienating each other, whether its feminists or whoever else. Every one of us is crucial. Maybe you can’t understand what that’s like.
I think Typhon and her honey badger crew live somewhere very different than I do.