One major theme in this year’s presidential election was that of the “war on women”.
The complaint was and essentially that the state shouldn’t get involved in women’s reproductive choices.
I agree.
With the exception of abortion, where a child’s life is involved, the state should leave women alone and let them make their own reproductive choices. They should be free to do as they will and live with the consequences.
But, feminists lie. They do not want the state to let them make their own reproductive choices. They want the state to force them (and others) to only accept certain reproductive choices.
Feminists want privilege and choice, not freedom.
****
Here’s a good example of the hypocrisy of the modern women espousing the creed of keep your hands off my body.
a woman in a country where politicians who actually believe that the female body has special powers to discern between evil sperm and loving sperm have been elected to create and vote on legislation that limits women’s control over their own health care.
…
“Perhaps remove the focus from that one point and think instead about the free abortions and contraceptives that will be given to all females of reproductive age… Or about the Muslims, Christian scientists, and Amish ( among others) that are exempt from obamacare due to religious beliefs….”She goes on and on, hitting every talking point FoxNews and its ilk have drummed into her head, including the legitimacy (there’s that word again) of Obama’s citizenship and his ties to socialism. It was all a bunch of moronic nonsense, but what stood out to me the most was her first line: “Perhaps remove the focus from that one point” — that “one point” being a woman’s right to control her own health care choice, as if that point weren’t worthy of our focus!! This was a woman saying this! A woman who was fed the bullshit and ate it up with a spoon, just like the GOP wanted.
By “limiting a women’s control over their own health care” she obviously means don’t want others to pay for it, even if it goes against their religious principles.
She says she wants the state out of her body, but she’s very clearly inviting the state into her body by having the state pay for her health care.
Her next complaint is about how crime effects women: a valid point, but ignores how it also effects men and children. It’s not part of this topic, so we’ll mostly ignore it.
I didn’t get any paid maternity leave when my baby was born. I work for myself, so I wasn’t expecting any, of course. But here in America, even if I had been working for someone else, that person or that company would not have been required by law to give me even a day of paid maternity leave. Not even an hour. My job would have been held for a few weeks, but that’s it.
I started a new moms’ group when I was pregnant and most of us all had babies within a few weeks of each other. Some of the women took extended maternity leave — six whole months — so they could stay home with their babies until they started, you know, sleeping for more than three hours at a stretch. They weren’t paid for that leave, and they worried as their savings dwindled what they’d do if there were an emergency and they missed more work.
Here she demands that the state pay for and legislate her reproduction. She’s demanding her workplace interfere with her body. She’s begging the state and corporations to involve themselves in her reproductive choices.”When they did go back, they had to deal not only with juggling motherhood and their careers, but also with navigating the office politics surrounding working mothers. One woman, a producer at a major network news station, worried about being overlooked for assignments that would require her to travel now that she was a single mother of an infant. She worried about being overlooked for promotions and raises now that her “focus was split.” “I don’t want to be mommy-tracked,” she lamented, as she plotted ways to ensure topnotch child care for her daughter should her commitment to work be “tested” with a last-minute assignment that would take her out of town with just hours to prepare.”
Here she’s lamenting that the employer is not becoming involved these women’s reproductive choices.
How dare those corporations stay out of women’s private lives!
Many of my new mom friends who returned to work months after giving birth continued breastfeeding, which brought the new challenge of pumping at the office (or, “in the field,” in the case of my producer and journalist friends). They told me stories about the “designated areas” for them to pump, which are required by law. One woman, a clinical psychologist, pumped in a supply closet with a broken lock on the door. She kept one hand on her pump and one hand holding the door shut in case anyone wondered why the light was on and barged in on her without knocking. Finally, she put a sign on the door, but it was gone the next day and she had to make a new one. That one came down the next day, too.
Not content with the state and workplace involving themselves in her reproductive choices, she desperately wants the state and employers to further interfere in women’s breast-feeding decisions.
She notes that the state interferes in her breastfeeding decisions, but the tone of lament clearly indicates that the state is not interfering enough.
How dare they let women be free to make their own breastfeeding decisions!
Our rights are at risk — our basic rights — not to mention the fact that many of us are afraid, on a daily damn basis, of being attacked — legitimately attacked — simply because we are women.
This election year, vote to keep your rights. Vote for the people who are going to fight to protect you. And fight to keep the morons and the assholes and the douchebags out of power and out of our bodies.
She ends with a hypocritical statement about keeping people out of women’s bodies. How fitting when she spent the article arguing that other should involve themselves in women’s bodies and that this involvement was the basic right of the female.
One final observation, somewhere in the middle of her article she says:
I need a chaperone because some crazy douchebags think my body is public property. Hmm, I wonder wherever in the world they got that idea.
My suggestion: if you don’t want your body being viewed as public property, don’t act like it is by having the public pay for its upkeep.
****
This was just one example I’m using for illustrative purposes that I happened to come across while thinking about this post. I could find numerous others, but the point is made: No matter what the issue, most modern women want the state in their bodies. They beg for it, they vote for it.
They will selectively say they don’t on certain issues. They will dissemble about what the “state in their bodies” means. They will flat out lie, saying they don’t. But when it comes down to it:
The modern women fervently desires state interference in her reproductive choices.
It’s a broad-brush generality, NAWALT, I know, but most modern women who would say something like “keep your rosaries out of my ovaries,” “my body, my choice,” “keep the state out of our bodies,” or whatever, truly want the state interfering in their bodies.
They want the state to pay for their contraception.
They demand the state pay for their abortions and reproductive health care decisions.
They demand the state educate children on sexuality, contraception, and reproduction.
They demand the employer subsidizes their reproductive choices.
They demand the employer and state make their breast-feeding choices for them.
They demand their employer make their personal work-life balance for them.
They demand the state dictate their private marriage contracts (and then demand that the state dictate homosexuals’ private relationship contracts).
The modern women demands that the state and society involves itself intimately in her personal, sexual, and reproductive choices… but only when its convenient for her.
She demands privilege without responsibility. She demands society cater to her every whim, without her having
She detests others’ freedom, but argues for it for herself when it suits her.
She demands you pay for her every whim, but denies you any say.
She is tyrannical, irresponsible, and greedy.
****
To women reading this: either the state and society are involved in your body and your reproductive choices or they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways.
You can not demand that the state not regulate contraception, then demand that the state (or other organizations under the compulsion of the state) pay for your contraception.
You can not demand leave itself out of women’s abortion decisions, then demand that the state pay for abortion providers such as planned parenthood.
You can not demand that public schools stay out of dictating women’s sexual choices, then demand they engage in mandatory sexual education.
You can not demand that the public not comment on your reproductive choices, then demand that they pay for the maintenance of your children.
You can not demand the public refuse to comment on your sexual choices, then force the public to subsidize your sexual lifestyle and health care needs.
You can not demand that your employer not dictate your personal life to you, then demand your employer subsidize your maternity leave and fund your personal choices.
You can not demand that the church remove itself from your reproductive choices, then demand that the church pay for your reproductive choices.
It is an either-or proposition.
Either the state has the right to interfere in your sexuality and reproductive choices or it does not. Either the public has the right to interfere with your sexuality or it does not. Either your employer can interfere in your personal life, or it can not.
You are either free or you are not.
Make the choice.
If you choose to invite others into your sexual, reproductive, and personal lives, do not hypocritically complain when they do.
****
In conclusion, the modern women, however much she may protest otherwise, desperately desires that others involve themselves in her reproductive and sexual choices, but only when it is convenient to her.
So, next time a modern women says the state should stay out of her uterus, ask her opinion on mandatory maternity leave. Point out the contradiction. Point out her hypocrisy.
When I have tried to point out the hypocrisy of wanting to have total freedom of choice with no responsibility with regard to contraception, the standard come-back is, “Yeah, well men have sex, too, and don’t have to pay for this stuff,” with the idea being that using tax dollars to cover the cost is really just making men pay their “fair share.”
I usually happily state that I’ll buy the condoms every time we have sex as paying my fair share.
You mean of course that they cannot demand both propositions on principle, with logical coherence. They can certainly demand both if politics is merely about spoils and arguments founded in rhetoric.
I do have to say your post is well-written and that you have a valid concern, but I am worried because your post can easily convince other men without any sort of rebuttal or without any other information so I am hoping other men will read my long comment.
First, I have a problem with “Here’s a good example of the hypocrisy of the modern women” — you can’t generalize what a modern woman is. And you can’t project this hypocrisy to all women. [This is called ‘essentialism’] Especially since you only use an example of one woman who is obviously angrily responding to a FoxNews segment (and I hate calling it FoxNews because is isn’t ‘news’)
Anyways… I hope you take my comment intellectually as a scholar and not as a personal attack.
I don’t think you understand or give importance to the role of state. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its people, foster community, provide a fair market for competitors, etc. Yes, part of it is to do with money — women, in general, have to pay the costs for contraception, birth etc with their bodies, time, money, etc. [for example, do men take any birth control pill? no][Also, I appreciate the man here who takes the responsibility to share birth control costs/burdens :)] In this case, it is the state’s responsibility to offer a woman reproductive choices. If a woman wants to have sex, she should have easy access to birth control (if a man wants to have sex, he should have easy access as well!).
In response to “She says she wants the state out of her body, but she’s very clearly inviting the state into her body by having the state pay for her health care.”
–> Access to proper healthcare is a right delineated by Congress long ago; the issue is just about who’s paying for it. The right is just as much a right as equal treatment under the law, access to education, the right to not starve, etc. So women aren’t asking the govt to dictate their bodies; they’re asking for the govt to provide access to the health they so rightly deserve — only with proper ACCESS, can a woman make the choice that is informed by experts (either by drs in a NPO that is funded by govt or from doctors paid by healthcare companies). A woman is not asking for anyone to make decisions for her — she just wants options so she can make the best decision for herself and/or her partner + family.
–> In addition, the phrase “get out of a woman’s body” was popularized as a backlash against vaginal probing, sonograms, unnecessary examinations and of course, abortions. So using such a loaded phrase and applying it to such a broader concept of human rights is just… inaccurate and misleading.
I mean I could have long conversations with you about all the points you made in your post, but I’m only going to talk about maternity leave and healthcare, since you ended with it.
Simply put, men don’t get pregnant, give birth, breastfeed, etc. Women, who are intellectual equals to men, should be given the chance to equally compete with men in a professional playing field. But when they are pregnant, medically speaking, they have a disability. And those with disabilities have to be protected by the govt so that they won’t be discriminated against by their employer and they can have equal opportunities. [I mean seriously, not offering maternity leave programs is ridiculous.] I mean if you’ve ever known a brand-new mother, you should see how difficult and tolling it is. I even support paternity leave programs, which only universities have in place (at least from what I’ve seen).
To help you understand, lets use an analogy: Does an employer command that an employee not drink or smoke simply because s/he does not want to pay for healthcare costs of that individual employee? No. Because the employer does not have a right to dictate personal choices. So why should they dictate a woman’s?
@ SSM: Some people can not think outside of their victim status.
@ Niki: You’re correct, that only applies when politics is considered from a rational point of view rather than as a form of plunder.
@ CS: I can generalize: look at any site geared towards the “modern woman”, be it Jezebel, Feministing, Slate XX, the Gawker Network, or feminists blogs. The argument is always for privilege without responsibility.
I do not project it to all women, only the “modern” feminist/quasi-feminist woman. Many women, such as traditional women, would not be among them.
(As for Fox News, all the major news networks are lying scum, but Fox is the least vile of them).
You are incorrect about the rest. The state has no responsibility to provide any of that stuff. The state’s responsibility is to protect people from violence from other people.
The simple fact is, whoever is paying for something is the one who should decide the terms and conditions of how it is used. By asking for someone else to pay for something for you, you are asking them to make the decision for you.
Women should make their own decision, on their own dime, by their own effort.
If women, choose to have children, that is there choice. Others should not be forced to subsidize their choices. If they want career success, they can simply choose not to have children.
If an employer is paying the health insurance of an employee, they should be allowed to dictate whether that employee can smoke or drink.
Why do you demand that others subsidize your personal choice?
Why do you demand the state steal from others at the point of a gun to provide you with their stuff?
Life is about choices. You make your choice, you work towards your choices, and you live with the consequences of your choices. Others should not be forced into underwriting your choices and protecting you from the consequences of your choice. That is freedom.
@CS:
1. “In this case, it is the state’s responsibility to offer a woman reproductive choices. If a woman wants to have sex, she should have easy access to birth control…”
Says who? Who decides what the role of the state is or isn’t? Why should we go along with it? Why should we march in lockstep with feminist preferences and their ensuing transfers of money from men to women via taxation to finance the welfare state and its corresponding health and reproductive programs? To borrow from Krauser, why should taxpayers be the cuckolds of society?
2.”… women, in general, have to pay the costs for contraception, birth etc with their bodies, time, money, etc. [for example, do men take any birth control pill? no][Also, I appreciate the man here who takes the responsibility to share birth control.”
If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant and cannot afford contraception, then she shouldn’t spread her legs. If the man she’s with is so irresponsible that he doesn’t care if she gets pregnant or not, then the woman shouldn’t spread her legs. Frankly, if her partner selection strategies are so awful that she’s allowing men inside her who have no regard for the consequences of their actions, then she probably shouldn’t be going around without adult supervision, let alone voting or operating heavy machinery.
As for the male birth control pill, scientists have been grinding away on that one for years. Chateau Heartise already addressed this back on May 14. A Brazilian doctor was actually discussing the work on it at a conference, when attending feminists like Betty Frieden went monkey-s@#$. Heartiste writes; “So why would feminists be against a male Pill? According to the doc, their answer is that they don’t want the decision to have a child or not taken away from women. In other words, they believe that men having decision-making power over their own reproduction is tantamount to taking that reproductive power away from women. The male Pill, in a twisted feminist’s mind, is akin to outlawing abortion or the female Pill.”
3. “But when they are pregnant, medically speaking, they have a disability.”
I must admit, the first time I read this statement, I felt a flash of repulsiveness. Leave it to a feminist to view pregnancy as a disability. As a man (and from the reactions I’ve seen from the men I’ve known), seeing a pregnant woman sets off all kinds of triggers that stir up reflexive protective instincts toward the woman, even if she’s a complete stranger. A pregnant woman is a walking, talking miracle. I spent a year and half getting put back together at Walter Reed, and I’ve seen the human body broken in ways I hope you can’t imagine. So for me, the idea that you would lump something wonderful like a woman carrying a baby in with something like paraplegia or amputations was disgusting.
As I re-read it, I understood what you were trying to say regarding the toll that childbirth takes on a woman. Having seen women whom I love go through pregnancy and its aftermath, I have nothing but respect for the trial a woman goes through to bring human life into this world. It is heroic. However, if a woman needs all of this positive discrimination, and all of the bureaucracy and the latent threat of violence that comes with the state’s exercise of power, in order to compete on the level of men’s capacity for production in the workplace, then “equal” might not mean what you girls think it does.
There is no such animal as “equality.” Human beings are born into cultural and genetic legacies and their best hope is to evolve as much as they can within the confines and hierarchies of those realities, adapt to the circumstances and pressures of the world around them, and produce and cultivate healthy, adaptable offspring. “Equality,” “independence,” and all of the usual code words riddled within the female boilerplate are meaningless and have no place in this world. Don’t even get me started on “happiness.”
All of these oppressive, archaic, patriarchal norms which you and your kind so despise were not made for your modern utopian delusions. They were not made to feel good. God knows it wasn’t a picnic for men either. These were survival strategies. The trouble is that those strategies were so effective that they allowed the West to achieve abundance and hegemony unlike anything the world has seen. That abundance and protection has resulted in a cocoon which has warped modern women so thoroughly that they fail to understand how truly brutal and merciless this world is, and how utterly dependent they are on men fighting, killing, dying, building, turning bolts, digging coal, drilling oil, laying bricks, plumbing, roofing, driving trucks, working railroads, planting crops, and ultimately, working their a@%es ragged.
This is an old story. When civilizations/societies begin, women understand in their bones just how dependent they are, however, once their security and safety are no longer an issue, they begin chasing pleasure and novelty, and men permit it because it leads to easier access to sex. Discipline and solidarity fall by the wayside. Everyone begins mating for short term preferences (or failing to mate altogether), and we see the human Id in all its glory. Women’s in particular. Once a people have gotten to the place where sexual energies can be unleashed on a relatively wide scale, their political structure is not long for this earth. Our situation is no different as trillions of dollars of debt, rampant consumerism, diminished family formation and sustainment, fifty-some-odd million abortions, full-bore narcissism, and overall and degradation of social capital will attest.
That being said, I realize that this probably didn’t make a dent. You probably have several feminist/progressivist talking points already churning in your hamster’s wheel. If it makes you feel better, by all means post them if Free Northerner will permit it. I will tell you something about women, though, that you probably already know, but you would never admit. As a woman, you want to be dominated. You yearn to surrender. But only to someone (or something, hence your statist affinities) who is stronger/more powerful than you are. The nature of that power may vary some, but even a cursory evaluation of female behavior from ages nine to ninety bears this out. You will take the prince over the pauper, the strong over the weak, the Alpha over the Beta, every day of the week and twice on Sunday and you won’t feel the least bit bad about it. I’m guessing that’s probably why you are trolling Free Northerner’s site. Those in your circle, particularly the men, probably run the spectrum of those accommodating your opinions to gain your approval or are true believers who hope to achieve social status by “being one of the good ones” and atone for their forbearers’ ability to build a world that they themselves lack the balls to duplicate, match, or sustain. Here in the “Manosphere,” we call those men, “Mangina’s.” Odds are you’re bored, and the idea that there are men who refuse to bear the yoke of feminism; who seek to avoid the pitfalls it sets for men, or aim to go on the attack and take advantage of its preferences for their own benefit, confronts you with something you don’t get in the real world: men who push back. Trolling, stirring up dissention, and trying co-opt this venue to serve as your platform by framing the comments to draw energy away from Free Northerner’s original post probably gives you the Dopamine fix you aren’t getting in your real life.
Women like you make men like me miss war. Getting into firefights with Haji is preferable to having to endure entitlement princesses on their soapboxes.