Playing Abortion Chess
Potent Feminist Weapon
In the Seinfeld episode called “The Couch,†there’s a famous scene in which Elaine and Jerry are sitting in Poppie’s restaurant, awaiting the duck Jerry ordered days in advance. Elaine expresses great anticipation about partaking of the vaunted fowl, while ever-cynical Jerry grumbles that he would be just as happy eating a Paccino’s pizza at home. In disgust, Elaine promptly announces her boycott of Paccino’s—because of its anti-abortion owner. To test Elaine’s policy, Jerry summons Poppie to their table to opine on the matter. Upon hearing Poppie vociferously denounce abortion, Elaine storms out of the restaurant, followed by the other outraged female patrons—with their annoyed husbands and boyfriends, still eating the meals they had purchased, in tow.
The imagery of this restaurant scene—strident feminists dictating the lives and destinies of men—is an accurate metaphor for life in the USA. And, no issue galvanizes feminists and gives them more power over men than abortion. Far more than a medical procedure, abortion is a potent feminist weapon in the political game of chess. Let me state for the record that I support abortion but reject “pro-choice,†a misnomer, as the way to characterize it.
Pro-choice is a politically correct, feminist term that really means pro-woman. It conveys upon women all reproductive rights and choices. The Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court gives women the exclusive power to opt out of parenthood. Accordingly, because Roe v. Wade violates the equal-protection clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the National Center for Men, on March 9, 2006, filed a lawsuit called Roe v. Wade for MenTM—asking the federal government to recognize and uphold a man’s equal right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. The National Organization for Women (NOW), of course, immediately repudiated this lawsuit—equality for men is the last thing NOW wants.
In any American election, a politician must avow his “pro-choice†stance to get elected or reelected. A nominee to the US Supreme Court must articulate his acceptance and support of the Roe v. Wade decision, if he expects the US Senate to consent to his nomination and the feminists not to pillory him.
Then, there is the matter of parental notification in cases when pregnant minors seek to have abortions. As parents in many states have learned, if, through special elections or referenda, they demand such notification, NOW will fight them. State supreme courts, such as the one in California, have ruled that a girl’s right to privacy supersedes her parents’ right to be parents. Yet, this same minor needs her parents’ permission to take medication in school or to get her ears pierced. This insanity illustrates that it is abortion NOW cares about, not the lives or traumas or families of young, pregnant girls.
From the aforementioned Seinfeld episode, elections, Supreme Court nominations, and parental-notification battles, one might get the impression that: 1) feminists control the national agenda, 2) feminists speak for all women, and 3) abortion is the number-one issue for all women. Are these points true?
Let’s compare NOW bosses to union bosses, whose main agenda is job-preservation. Union bosses formerly controlled both the national agenda and the players. NOW still controls the national agenda and the players—it delivers female votes by scaring women and legislative votes by blackmailing “skeletons-in-the-closet†senators into passing anti-male legislation.
NOW leaders, like their union brethren, to this day wrongly believe that they speak for the rank and file. Hardly. If women were so fanatical about abortions, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would be zero, wouldn’t it? Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood—out of narcissism and for the child support.
The Road to Fraudulent Maternity
The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 744,600 US abortions in 1973, 1.6 million in 1990 (the peak year), and 1.3 million in 2004. Yet, the US population rose 45% in that 31-year period, from 203 million to 294 million. The Brookings Institution claims that, in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrates were 24% and 3.1% for blacks and whites, respectively. Those figures grew by 1990 to 64% and 18%, respectively. Now, they are 70% and 35%, respectively. Abortions, relative to population growth, are decreasing, while illegitimate births are rising. Creating fatherless homes is trendy!
In the course of everyday life, tort laws provide remedies to protect us from those who would mislead and defraud us, such as unscrupulous bankers, retailers, realtors, car dealers, and contractors. If, however, a woman makes false claims about her fertility or use of birth control, tort law hides under the proverbial desk, with family courts offering men this warning: caveat fornicator.
For those who don’t grasp that, in the US, women own most of the civil rights, have little regard for men, and are likely to choose child support over abortion, allow me to expose their three-phase path to “legalized†fraudulent maternity. Yes, thanks to feminist sycophants, family courts everywhere permit and encourage women to become unwed mothers, and reward them—at the expense of men—for their irresponsible behavior, as follows:
Three “Twisted†Phases of Legalized Fraudulent Maternity
- DisTORTION: twisting the facts of her fertility and use of birth control
- ConTORTION: twisting her body into amazing positions during sex
- ExTORTION: twisting his wallet through 18 years of child support.
Male Guilt
To fathom the genesis of American misandry, I look to Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Dr. Steele authored White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Steele claims that, because of history, whites are forever stigmatized as racists and accused of “blaming the victims†if they encourage blacks to engage in hard work, self-reliance, and moral responsibility. Because of “white guilt,†blacks continue to play victims, receive deferential treatment from whites, and make excuses for not growing.
Strident feminism has analogously stigmatized men, also effecting a destructive outcome: lawmakers, governors, presidents, judges, and jurists have “male guilt.†They erroneously view women as “victims,†defer to them, and tolerate their excuses for not growing—perpetuating the endless cycle of unwed motherhood and blaming men for their mistakes.
I fantasize about the governor of a prominent US state, pen in hand, in front of microphones, journalists, and cameras at this bill-signing ceremony:
“It is my honor to sign into law today the Responsible Mother Act of 2008. We are ending the disgraceful pandemic of fatherless homes and fraudulent maternity. From this day forward, unwed mothers-to-be have two choices: abortion, a critical female right, or raising and supporting their children alone without child support. Women choosing single motherhood will sign certificates of selfishness, a copy of which each child, upon attaining the age of 16, will receive. The era of rewarding miscreant moms for their irresponsibility, anti-male fraud, and selfishness is hereby terminated.â€
When writing my book, I coined this marketing tagline: Life with her needn’t be an endless game of chessTM. Originally, I meant it to warn men not to waste time and energy with women whose actions, words, and thoughts must be anticipated five iterations in advance. But, I now see another parallel. First, the objective of chess is to debilitate the king by cornering him and removing his options. Second, the queen is the most-powerful piece on the board. Third, the least-powerful pieces, the pawns, resemble children whom mothers bear and sacrifice solely to gain child support. It’s as if NOW invented chess!
NoNonsense Bottom Line
Abortion is a critical option to prevent unwanted children, ruined lives, and destroyed livelihoods. Yet, women do not universally use this option, as it is not their number-one issue—despite what NOW says. Not to worry: feminists created the child-support industry, too. They covered all the bases, but they never use child support as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Only abortion. When feminists claim to speak for all women, they are lying. Abortion, for the feminists, is a powerful means to checkmate men. It’s worked so far.
Before having sexual intercourse, men and women must discuss what they will do in the case of an unintended pregnancy. Keep in mind that the woman can lie in this discussion. If you don’t trust her answer, or if she desires to bear a child you don’t want, put your pants back on and leave.
When men gain the equal right to opt out of unintended pregnancies, women who unilaterally choose motherhood will become solely responsible for raising and supporting those children. Then, the out-of-wedlock birthrate will plummet, and abortion just may peter out as a useful weapon in political chess.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 27 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
September 29th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Remember the woman who bragged on national radio about killing a one-night-stand who was unwilling later to pay child support:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/04/leykis-gets-murder-confession/
I think the feminists have the Men’s Rights Movement tied and bound because some of the men think opposing abortion needs to be in the top 10 of the Republican Platform while most men would either prefer a compromise like the Germans have (that results in three times less a rate of abortion than the Americans have) or men see abortion as the way to save themselves from $200,000 in child support.
The German compromise is as such: Abortion is illegal and not paid for by the state. But a woman can have one privately in the first trimester and not be charged if she politely listens to someone try to talk her out of it for an hour…and then waits 72 hours after this discussion.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
[...] and the Census Bureau statistics prove it. Alas, the out-of-wedlock birthrate (see my article “Playing Abortion Chess”) also proves it. Men are finally realizing that they don’t have to get married and [...]
November 4th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
[...] I urge you to be careful with women. Because they have most of the civil rights, thanks to VAWA, they can be dangerous. While “pumping and dumping” them may seem appealing and expeditious, it can backfire. Police will always presume men guilty and women innocent. Sue’s story, once again, proves it. It also proves, as I wrote in “Playing Abortion Chess,” that women care more about child support than abortion — even to the point of killing for it. [...]
October 31st, 2006 at 1:37 pm
[...] But, it seems that the tide is now turning. Men are increasingly saying no to marriage and relationships, and the Census Bureau statistics prove it. Alas, the out-of-wedlock birthrate (see my article “Playing Abortion Chess”) also proves it. Men are finally realizing that they don’t have to get married and don’t want to get married. They are tired of playing a losing game against the house. To modern men, matrimony equals alimony — not safety, comfort, and love. [...]
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:24 am
These are pretty damn good too!:
“Given the structure of the mating dance, we are the ones who have to dig through a pile of turds hoping to find the tootsie roll that everyone is claiming is buried at the bottom.”
and,
“No matter how good she looks to you right now, there some guy out there just sick to death of her shit.â€
I almost fell off my chair from laughing when I read these.
Nice post zed.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:47 pm
“Men sitting on the sidelines is another pathetic form of chivalry.
Men are afraid to confront women in public forums, to their own detriment and peril.
The preponderance of our government officials are men, who have sold out their own gender.
It amazes me that ordinary men sit by, watching their lives, rights, and fortunes sink — while those of women rise, rise, rise.
Fight back, I say — at the ballot boxes and in the streets. Don’t tolerate female nonsense.
Ever.
Women want to get laid.
They are more sexual than you are.
They are horny.
They do get tired of their fingers and their vibrators, and most of them are not going to join the current bisexual trend.
They want real men.
That means they will want you.
But, if you are a chivalrous wimp, they won’t be screwing you — just your wallet.
END THE NONSENSE NOW!”
Possibly the best 14 sentences that I’ve read this week, Marc.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Marc Rudov said,
Women want real men. That means they will want you.
The problem lies more in the fact that men also want real women, not the silicone-enhanced, botox-injected, liposuctioned, makeup-applied-with-a-trowel, drama-loving perpetual-victim hags we have to chose from.
They may want us, but an increasing number of us don’t want them. Given the structure of the mating dance, we are the ones who have to dig through a pile of turds hoping to find the tootsie roll that everyone is claiming is buried at the bottom.
The chase is fun for a while, but eventually it gets old. As that popular poster says “No matter how good she looks to you right now, there some guy out there just sick to death of her shit.”
September 21st, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Denis,
Men sitting on the sidelines is another pathetic form of chivalry. Men are afraid to confront women in public forums, to their own detriment and peril. The preponderance of our government officials are men, who have sold out their own gender.
It amazes me that ordinary men sit by, watching their lives, rights, and fortunes sink — while those of women rise, rise, rise.
Fight back, I say — at the ballot boxes and in the streets. Don’t tolerate female nonsense. Ever.
Women want to get laid. They are more sexual than you are. They are horny. They do get tired of their fingers and their vibrators, and most of them are not going to join the current bisexual trend.
They want real men. That means they will want you. But, if you are a chivalrous wimp, they won’t be screwing you — just your wallet.
END THE NONSENSE NOW!
September 20th, 2006 at 10:26 am
I have reworked the last paragraph on my previous post:
Marc Rudov’s column is about the remnants of upended and outdated models for the roles of men and women, and how modern feminism caused this fissure, which resulted in women winning all the prizes, and men being pushed out of society and their own families.
We live in an era where these remnants of upended and outdated models for the roles of men and women, keep too many men, at least in part, in a chivalrous traditionalist mentality.
And that is especially true of our leaders.
Leaders of churches, industry (affirmative action is a form of traditional chivalry), and of course political leaders who always see new “special needs†for women, are all forms of traditonal chivalry. Modern feminism caused this fissure 40 years ago, which resulted in women winning all the prizes, and men being pushed out of society and their own families. We are living in a time-lag where old models do not work, and where women have been the only ones building a new model after the fissure. Obviously they have been building a model that works best for them (or at least they believe works best for them).
Out of traditional chivary, men have been on the sidelines for 40+ years and have witnessed their own displacement from the family and the society at large.
It is time to see the big picture and not allow yourselves to get blinded by other issues.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
KateM
“Why is adoption not enthusiastically promoted as an option for women who don’t have a willing and wanting partner for the offspring she alone is deciding to bear? Why is it that single motherhood is a more welcome and accepted option than adoption? What is up with that!!!! Don’t children deserve two parents who want to love and raise them? If two people who had no intention of having a family find that she is pregnant shouldn’t it be both people’s right to choose whether or not they are ready to take on the responsibility of parenting? There are huge numbers of people who are ready and able who would love to adopt a child.”
Unfortunately, the “single mom” label is a badge of honor for some feminists. It is a political, social, and ecomic decision and statement. And unfortunately, its all about THEM, not the child. They get all the glory in some sort of socially sanctioned martyr role, and the kid gets a lame childhood. When women stand up in court and state “I wanted to get pregnant and not get married” – what is the court to do? It does what it can. It saddles the duped father for support for 18+ years, even though the woman admits to entrapment. Its legal. And it is rewarded.
“If the man does not want to be a father and the women still insists on having and keeping the baby she alone should accept the responsibility she has chosen.”
Agreed.
But that is not the law.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Mr. Dias, I do not think I assumed anything in my #51 comment. My point was that I feel it is, perhaps, selfish for a woman to want to raise a child alone. In the context of what I wrote that is clear. Therefore, if she chooses to raise a child alone she should be financially and emotionally able to be responsible for her choice. Thank you for not arguing any of my other comment.
Feminism by one definition in Merrian-Webster’s is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexesâ€. Isn’t that what we want? Maybe it is not that definition but rather the practices of some feminist groups that we find objectionable. Or is it the decisions of those we have elected that we find objectionable? It certainly wasn’t women only that signed this crap into law.
Is this not a forum for ideas to make statements against and find solutions for the unequal laws that prevent men from having an equal say in their willingness and desire to be a parent?
Personally, I like the freedoms I still have and wish that we all shared them equally. This is about legal rights as the law today describes them and they should be fare and equal for both men and women.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
The “women good-men bad†mentality has been around for a very long time. Prior to modern feminism the male model in all western societies was as the Traditional Chivalrist. Men were providers and protectors of women. Hitler believed that women working in factories would cause them depression and other mental diseases as they were the fairer sex in need of protection. He even gave a speech stating that the world of men and women should be separate:
Adolf Hitler, speech to the NSDAP Women’s Organization (September, 1934)
“The slogan “emancipation of women” was invented by Jewish intellectuals. If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s in a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? The great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. We do not consider it correct for the women to interfere in the world of the man. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct.”
In America in the 1800s, the KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in lifeâ€, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhoodâ€. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.
The Women’s KKK (WKKK) became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks†through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squadsâ€, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping†boycotts, and pass political information around.
The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the worldâ€, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.
(to read more go to:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/#comments)
In otherwords, part of being a Traditional Chivalrist was in putting women on a pedestal.
And being on a pedestal was the female role.
The “women good-men bad” mentality follows directly from men having one role as a Traditional Chivalrist and women having one role on the pedestal.
This gave women great power and influence over the men and society at large-just as women do today. (But at least men had a role).
Today, religious leaders still put women on pedestals and reserve their chastisng for the men.
I’ve just listed a few examples but I think it is intuitive to men that in the past, there was one role, one model of behavior, for men, and one role, one model of behavior, for women. This was around for many many centuries.
Feminism completely upended this model. Both for women and especially for men. For women, it expanded their power. For men, it destroyed their role in society and in the family. The impact has been cataclysmic and destructive.
Once women were given special political rights and influence, it was a simple matter of using this ingrained “men bad-women good” mentality to implement a re-engineered society favoring women and displacing men.The chivalrous traditionalist men of the past, and of today, went along with this and helped plant the seeds of male oppression we see today in the western world.
The “women good-men bad” mentality is constantly paraded to gain women more and more freebies, privileges, and control, including ownership of the family, favortism on the job regarding hiring & promoting, lighter sentences for the same crime, and so on. It is a mentality common to all women and not just the feminists. It has been around for centuries.
It is why women are always victims, and why the the “victim strategy†is commonly the tactic of choice to get women whatever they want. This tactic is common because it works so reliably on men-even when used at the detriment of men.
Marc Rudov’s column is about the remnants of upended and outdated models for the roles of men and women, and how modern feminism caused this fissure, which resulted in women winning all the prizes, and men being pushed out of society and their own families. We are living in a time-lag where old models do not work, and where women have been the only ones building a new model after the fissure. Obviously they have been building a model that works best for them (or at least they believe works best for them).
It is time to see the big picture and not allow yourselves to get blinded by other issues.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Marc:
Chapter 5 of your book says that you are a man of metaphors. If you object to the one that I used, why? And what makes it a poor representation of your views?
Really, you’re getting a bit dramatic when you say, “I feel sorry for the men’s movement. G-d help us all.”
By the way, who is “G-d?”
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 19th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
John,
I am disappointed and chagrined to discover that you don’t understand me or my writings at all.
For you to attribute the hypothetical “If a woman goes to the market and steals an apple, and this crime is ignored due to chivalry, your solution is to legalize stealing of apples for both men and women” to MY way of thinking, you confirm not only your lack of comprehension of my position but also why men are getting nowhere in their quest for equality.
I feel sorry for the men’s movement. G-d help us all.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Marc:
You wrote:
“This is so obvious a concept, I cannot believe every guy doesn’t grasp it.”
You ARE very clear. You’re getting through, and you use clear language to communicate. The problem isn’t that people don’t understand you; it’s just that they disagree on certain aspects of your views, as elucidated in your column above (and particularly as relates to fatherhood).
If a woman goes to the market and steals an apple, and this crime is ignored due to chivalry, your solution is to legalize stealing of apples for both men and women. Why not hold both women and men to the same standard, and expect them both to obey the law? And if, as pertains to parenthood, mothers are perverting it by shutting men out of their kids’ lives and turning men into virtual ATM machines, then THAT is what must change (rather than legalizing the right of fathers to abandon their offspring, the proverbial “stolen apple” crime in this example.
This, to me, is the concept that is so obvious, and I too cannot believe every guy doesn’t grasp it.
John Dias
September 19th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
John,
A father is a man, first and foremost. If he doesn’t have basic rights as a man — as he does NOT have them in this country — he will never have them as a father.
Clearly, fathers do not have the same rights as mothers, because men do NOT have the same rights as women. This is so obvious a concept, I cannot believe every guy doesn’t grasp it.
Fight for MEN’s rights first, and the fathers among us will, too, get their rights. ANY deferential treatment towards women defeats men’s/fathers’ rights.
If you scroll backwards, you will see plenty of comments excusing miscreant-female behavior and the government authorities and laws that permit it. I stand by my statements.
I reject anyone or anything that gives women the upper hand in any matter whatsoever. I reject women who mistreat men as well as men who mistreat women. I cannot be any clearer.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Marc:
You know all about my hatred for feminism. You’ve been to my site…
http://www.dontmakehermad.com
…and you know exactly how much damage their tactics have caused. You know it in your own life. And you knew that when you referred to people who agree with my view (and possibly you were directly referring to me), you were calling them (what most men on this site would consider) an epithet.
A fathers rights activist (FRA) is a men’s rights activist (MRA) by definition. But not all MRAs are FRAs — like you. I will now practice chivalry and hold myself to a higher standard than you, by refraining from calling you a name.
We should be sticking together for SOME common goals, not calling names (”feminist” being the worst name you could call, worse even than the words in fourthwire’s lexicon).
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
September 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am
As the feminist men in this thread now can see, not all women are man-hating ballbusters. As I said in my article, NOW does not speak for all women.
KateM exemplifies the woman who likes and respects men, understands that men are at a disadvantage in this society, and wishes to make the playing field even. I can’t repeat enough that she is the kind of woman men should have in their lives. Learn how to find women like her in The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women.
Reject the manhaters, for they will destroy you.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Marc:
When a child exists, the focus becomes the child. A man who is a biological father to that child should also be a genuine father to that child. It’s about the child — no one ever talks about extending chivalry to a child. Chivalry is a concept applied by men to women. You’re still looking at this from a man vs. woman angle, yet when a new human being is brought into the world in part by the actions of the father, it is not chivalrous to expect that father to behave like a dad.
What we should be pushing for is greater rights for fathers to have access to their sons and daughters, to be in their lives, to be a positive influence. It should be harder, not easier, for fathers to abandon the benefits and responsibilities of fatherhood — just like it should be harder for women to do the same thing. Women shouldn’t have the right to abort, in my opinion. But even if that doesn’t change legally, women shouldn’t have the right to walk away from their kids after the kids are born — just like a man shouldn’t. Parenthood should be expected of parents, not because of the advantages or disadvantages this would incur in the gender wars. Parenthood should be expected of parents because they — by their actions — created a child. Women should not have any right to abandon a child after birth, just like men shouldn’t. Sounds like equality to me.
And KateM, you shouldn’t assume that women who choose to give birth to their kids have no interest in being mothers. Many single moms are good mothers in some sense, except they fail to contribute equally to the parenting responsibilities (such as putting food on the table and a roof over their heads); she feels entitled to that from the father, and that attitude of entitlement has to stop. But imagine what you’re implying: a mother has a baby, and then the state confiscates the baby and puts the baby into the adoption system, never to be seen again by either parent, on the precept that adoptive parents would be better than biological parents. Wouldn’t it be better if the law expected both biological parents to support their kids equally? Shouldn’t that be what the debate is about, rather than giving either parent the “right” (read: excuse) to abandon the child they created together?
This is NOT about gender wars! Change the laws (through legislation OR litigation) so that both parents are required to be equally responsible for a child they created. If either parent truly wanted to avoid the possibility of becoming a parent, there is a process called a vasectomy, or a phenomenon called abstinence, or a product called a condom… Men do have reproductive choices, Marc!
John Dias
September 19th, 2006 at 10:49 am
All Marc is saying is that men out there of all ages have to protect themselves from a situation that could possibly hurt them financially. Whether it is in a relationship or in a one night stand, it is about being aware to be responsible for our actions. Above all else, it comes down to money in the end. And since most relationships in this day and age are based on a weak foundation, we have to find ways to strengthen if it is desired or discontinue it and learn not to feel disappointed when severing ties. Life is complicated in the 21st century and the more information out there like with Roe Vs. Wade for Men can only keep men well informed whether men agree with it or not.
I have a friend at work who a couple years ago had to get married to his live in girlfriend of 3 years after she had become pregnant. He was 42 at the time and his girlfriend was in her mid to late 30s. She also has 2 children from a previous marriage and they all lived together in his house. He had kept his wedding date and pregnancy under wraps at work but all during the time just before every one found out, he always told people how much he hated kids and how he didn’t want them. But what confused me is why would he start a relationship with a single mom and have her and her two kids move into his house? People at work talked about his demeanor after they found out that he had married the weekend before and that the baby was due in a week’s time and noticed he was pretty angry. I said well guilt can be mutually exclusive to anger in this context when there had been a lack of trust all along. If he liked the living arrangement in spite of questions of trust, well then he should have protected himself by either getting a vasectomy or using a condom. Now he has to deal with the consequences of his actions all due to guilt and his new wife gains what she most likely wanted as a result of his guilt.
One time at a bar I heard someone say, “No one is a total waste, they can always serve as a bad example,” and I think a lot is to be learned from my co-worker’s example. You can learn by experience or by example of any kind and men have to take responsibility for what they do in this world because unfortunately and thanks to Feminism, the deck is stacked against men. Marc’s writings as basic as should a woman buy a man dinner is brilliant because it is his “broken window theory” into abortion chess and why relationships are in peril in the 21st century.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Why is adoption not enthusiastically promoted as an option for women who don’t have a willing and wanting partner for the offspring she alone is deciding to bear? Why is it that single motherhood is a more welcome and accepted option than adoption? What is up with that!!!! Don’t children deserve two parents who want to love and raise them? If two people who had no intention of having a family find that she is pregnant shouldn’t it be both people’s right to choose whether or not they are ready to take on the responsibility of parenting? There are huge numbers of people who are ready and able who would love to adopt a child.
If the man does not want to be a father and the women still insists on having and keeping the baby she alone should accept the responsibility she has chosen.
Men are forced to pay support for children they don’t want because ‘we the people’ don’t want to. Don’t get me started on how religion plays into this. Let’s remember our churches and states are supposed to be separate!!! Men deserve the same rights as women, to be able to legally separate from offspring they are unwilling or unable to care for before the child is born or the same right women have after a child is born, to be able a give the baby up for adoption, to the mother if her choice is to take on that responsibility.
Additionally, a woman should be required by law to inform the prospective father(s) during the first trimester so his rights can be in play and protected, (even if she plans to terminate the pregnancy because he might want to take sole custody of the prospective child). This would also prevent the ridiculousness of a woman being able to show up years after the fact with child in arm expecting support.