Saturday, December 09, 2006

N is for No Accident

Pete the Patriarch dropped by to say hi in a post, and wondered if I might add a link to his blog in my list of links. Honestly, I can't because I find him too vitrolically anti-feminist.

Doesn't mean that he might not have reason to have become so vitrolic or that he doesn't sometimes have a point, or good stuff:

One entry that struck me in particular was The Reversal of 'This was no accident', which links to two stories - one is about getting tricked into fatherhood, and perhaps marriage via men.style.com, and includes the following nifty bits:



Imagine for a moment this perfectly plausible scenario: You've had a steady girlfriend for a year or so and everything's going great. You still hold hands at the movies. Friends tell you you're good together. You're both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you're nowhere near considering fatherhood. And though you occasionally get the feeling that her biological clock is set far ahead of yours, she tells you she's "safe," so you don't worry. Why would you? It's not as if you'd just picked her up on Dollar Margarita Night at Señor Frog's. But one morning she tells you something has gone wrong. Unlikely as it sounds, she's pregnant-and she wants to keep it. What she doesn't tell you, though, is this: She wasn't being safe all along. She wanted to have that baby— and the way she saw it, this was the only way to make it happen.

Here's how a scenario like that played out in real life. Jody (not her real name), a 32-year-old account manager for a major New York ad firm, decided to speed things along with her boyfriend two years ago by getting pregnant without telling him. "It's not about trapping the guy," Jody says. "That's kind of old-fashioned. Yeah, you want him to be into it, but there are other ways to get a guy to commit. If you're smart and in a good relationship, it's just about the fact that you want a kid." Even in her circle of young, urban, and gainfully employed friends, Jody says, this particular brand of subterfuge isn't exactly condemned the way one might expect. In fact, it's sort of, well, normal. "I see and hear people talk about it, and I understand. I get it," she says, "and I don't even think it's that manipulative. It's more like, 'Hey, the timing is right for me. I got pregnant—oops! Well, it's here, let's have it.' I think that's more the way it is now than it was back in the day when you had to marry someone before you got pregnant. Marriage doesn't matter now."

"Trapping" the guy is "old-fashioned"? "Yeah, you want him to be into it?" "It's just about the fact that you want a kid?" "Marriage doesn't matter now."

What amazing quotes. The idea that trapping a guy is old-fashioned - we don't do that anymore - perhaps we don't have to - because "Marriage doesn't matter now." True - it doesn't - you don't have to be married to pay child support, do you?

No, you don't.

And "I don't even think it's that manipulative. " No - not manipulative at all to put someone in the position of having to choose between having a child you don't want and are not ready for, or killing an unborn infant and traumatizing your partner. WHAT?!?!?!! I can hardly think of a more manipulative thing that you could do.

But that isn't the way many women see it no, according to the article: "some women, particularly ones in stable relationships, don't see this as trickery at all—it's more like a nudge."

Wait, there's more:


"A lot of us feel like it's not even really fair that men should get to vote, considering they could be 72 and, with a little Viagra, have another baby," says Vicki Iovine, author of The Girlfriends' Guide to Pregnancy. "For us women, it's really a limited window. We know that boys who grow up to become men don't necessarily want to be men. They like to be boys. And so women say, 'You know what? He's gonna just have to snap out of it—and my pregnancy will be the thing to do it.'" The end, says Iovine, sometimes justifies the means. "Any guy with a heart and soul, and preferably with a job, once he sees the baby on the sonogram or hears the heartbeat, will melt," she says.
It apparently just isn't fair that men have any say in the disposition of their genetic material, or their potential fatherhood, or the inevitable financial drain that they will suffer when they are railroaded into either marriage, or support. Of course, the coin looks very different on the other side. Remember the feminists arguing that women need to choose, so that they don't have to be forced into poverty, lose opportunity, education, options, so that they aren't enslaved to their wombs? Well now they have that freedom, but men are enslaved to their wombs. Very Nice.

The article continues to touch on Matt Dubay, but then tells us the story of 'Jeremy':


Jeremy, a 35-year-old technical consultant and musician in New York [...] thought he'd found himself a nice girl. He had just split with his longtime fiancée but explains that this new woman was saying all the right things—even when it came to practical matters. She was on the Pill. She was pro-choice. So she and Jeremy (who's using a fake name) enjoyed a couple of months of unprotected intimacy.
Then things got weird. She mysteriously quit drinking. She disappeared for days at a time. She told him she was considering going off birth control, though she assured him she hadn't yet. By July, Jeremy had had enough and broke things off. Then in August, he says, she told him she was pregnant and was keeping it. "She was pregnant all of May, all of June, and all of July," Jeremy says. "I said, 'Why didn't you tell me about this sooner?' She's like, 'I didn't want you to influence my decision.' Something that has potential impact on me for the rest of my life, she doesn't want me influencing her decision!?"

More than a year and $6,500 in legal fees later, Jeremy has a 7-month-old boy he's never met, a child-support case pending, and a judge who's less than sympathetic toward his allegations of contraceptive deceit. Even his own attorney told him he'd better ditch that dream of becoming a full-time musician and focus on the computer gig that he'd hoped would only supplement his income: "She was like, 'You know what? You gotta be a man. You're gonna have to have a job 40 hours a week, and you need to support this child—this is your responsibility and your obligation.' And I'm thinking to myself, like, 'How is all of this my responsibility and my obligation when none of this was my choice?'"


Jeremy's hell is only beginning, but let me direct you back to The Reversal of 'This was no accident' - where Pete relates the story of a man who beat 'the system'.

And in case you think this is all fantasy, paranoia and misogyny remember that "The National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 conducted in the United Kingdom found that 42% of the women in the survey said they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners." Add to that that between 10% and 30% of children tested to determine paternity turn up as being "someone else's", and you start to understand how horrifically wrong it is that over 100,000 men - mostly earning at or below the poverty level - are imprisoned for non-payment of support every year.

A comment at Noli Irritare Leones captures the evil of the system well:




First, I have it on good authority from a lady friend of mine that she knows of several women who have been quite candid about getting pregnant for the child support. I was personally horrified to hear this being so candidlty admitted. Prior to hearing this I would have dismissed the idea as an urban legend and it seems a disgusting commodification of humanity. But it’s not irrational given the fact that child support can quickly run up to over $1,000 per month tax free. At those child support figures, being casual about birth control can pay better than a minimum wage job. For example, one local Fresno “celebrity” has two children by two different men. Given that the fathers were medical professionals, she was probably pulling in $30,00 to $40,000 per year tax free from child support. Certainly this is a substantially better gig than working two minimum wage jobs like some women I know.
In the USA, Men are Slaves, Women are Owners. Get wise, or get out of the country, I say.

My best to you in your struggles...

-M

Update: Pete is now linked. I was wrong to deny him. Thanks. See: Pete the Patriarch

Technorati Tags:

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

That hurt dude! I admit that I'm against feminism but what is bad about being an anti-feminist.

Take care,
Pete

furiousBall said...

I'm someone whom has just started down the D word road. While men may be slaves and women the owners, we both raise our children. Raising them right is the only way to change the slavery rules.

Anonymous said...

The problem, furiousball, is millions of men aren't allowed to raise their kids. Just pay support with all contact refused, so I really can't grasp your point.

As far as comment that Pete is vitriolically antifeminist, all rational, sane men are vitriolically antifeminist.

Anonymous said...

Exactly right, Anonymous 11:42 PM. There is something really wrong with the brain of anyone who isn't strongly, with his whole heart and soul, anti-feminist.

anonymous age 64

Anonymous said...

I realized my comment was too brief, and had no explanation. I read MS. magazine for years, until in the 80's my stomach simply could no longer tolerate it. MS magazine was the official national publication of NOW, the National Organization of Man-Haters.

Each month, they printed the latest orders to members. Letters to write to State and Federal legislators. Calls to make. Explanations why it was just to file false sex abuse charges against men who were about to win custody from abusive mothers. In the mid-80s, they stated that a divorced father's lifetime income belonged to all members of the family. Mother, father, and two kids meant 3/4 of his income for life went, not to the kids, but to Mommy.

You seem to think some of this stuff happening to men today isn't right. But, refusing to link to Pete's blog because he is too anti-feminist, makes me think you believe all this current stuff sort of happened by itself.

I read and followed the Master Plan as it unfolded. They printed success stories when they got these laws passed.

ALL THIS CURRENT EVIL WAS DIRECT RESULT OF MAJOR EFFORTS BY F-E-M-I-N-I-S-T-S!!!!! They not only caused it; it was well-planned, and malicious. In exactly the same sense the Nazi propaganda machine caused the Holocaust in Germany, and using almost exactly the same techniques.

For years, I wrote op-eds on what the feminists were doing. Most of the real attacks I faced were from men. The good news is, most of the men who really slammed me got their ***** ripped off in divorce courts. I am a holder of grudges, and I really used to get maniacal when I heard their agonized screams of despair. Hee, hee.

I say again, any sane and rational man is going to be vitriolically anti-feminist.

My guess is you have made the mistake the Jewish leaders made, and the Black leaders made. "Be calm, or you lose credibility." This is a common mistake, and I guarantee you neither Jewish nor Black leaders today will ever make that same mistake again. Yet, here we men are, doing the same thing that has always caused great disasters and Holocausts -- urging each other to be NICE.

Anonymous age 64

J Mitchell Parker, Jr said...

It never seizes to amaze me when I hear such realities and understand that our society is totally and completely accepting of this manipulative behaviour. This was learned in Deception 101, obviously a required course for the contemporary woman. Unfortunate for men it is set into motion by an action we will never fully abstain from (sex). So what's our recourse? Legislation.