Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Manipulative Women, Stupid Men--UPDATED

UPDATE: Dr. Helen links to me and says this about my point of view:

Yep, just another pathetic loser who wanted some reproductive rights--shame on him!
Well, I'm for restricting everyone's reproductive rights--including women's. I believe abortion-rights have denigrated a woman's place in society. I believe that women have been the second biggest losers due to abortion. Ultimately, children have lost the most--their lives. The child, or as a commenter so sensitively put it "a piece of tissue", has no rights. None.

When two consenting adults choose to have sex, certain responsibilities are implied. Get rid of abortion and put the responsibility back into everyone's hands. Suddenly, men suffering with foisted fatherhood are joined by the women who suffer the same. Since men won't protect themselves and choose to believe a lie so they can have more enjoyable sex, maybe women will get serious about birth control. Or not. At least everyone would be in the same sorry boat.

And for those who decry this as a throw-back to the bad old days, I'd like to remind you of the costs already borne by society because of responsibility avoidance. Just what we need: more welfare moms.

A woman lies to a man and gets pregnant. She might do this because she has always wanted a baby, the guy seems like a nice guy or has good genetics, and this is easier than artificial insemination. She might do this for some or none of the aforementioned reasons, plus she knows he'll support the baby . Or, she might be hard-hearted, calculating witch with a "B" and want the man's money--she has to take the baby as an unfortunate side effect.

This is a very bad woman. If you've ever read the Bible, Proverbs burst with scriptures warning men, especially young men, of this exact kind of woman. Flirting eyes, seductive words, scant clothing, she's the devil incarnate and will put this man in a world of hurt should he fall prey to her charms. I have also known sweet, conservative-looking, conniving women who use coercion rather than communication and lie to get what they want.

For every one of these evil women, there is at least one man willing to be duped. It's the same old story, "I wanna get me somethin' for nothin'." There is no such thing as "free" sex.

Now, why am I talking about this topic? Because Dr. Helen Smith, wife to Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, a clinical psychologist who's interested in Men's Issues, takes issue with Dr. Phil, psychologist to the stars and Oprah disciple. Dr. Phil had a segment about men who wanted more control over their reproductive destiny after the fact--that is, after they have reproduced--the same way women do. That was Exhibit "A". Exhibit "B" was a man who wanted more children than four and his wife was balking.

There are many issues here:
  1. Dr. Phil's forum and format irritate a lot of people. The men who watch him feel like he caters to his women audience and sell out men's issues for ratings. Men, and Dr. Smith, too, feel that Dr. Phil promotes misandry and has a very public forum and does great harm.
  2. Men should have the right to not support a child they don't want and were deceived into creating.
  3. Men should have a say about whether or not to have children if he is going to support them.
  4. Society's most discriminated segment is men. They are the new victims.
OK. Let's go topic by topic.
  1. All the daytime shows are a depressing cobble of mindless mush. The people are exploited for a little fame. All I could think about watching the segment I saw of Dr. Phil was the poor child caught between two complete morons. The mother actually allowed the baby's picture to be seen. The sperm donor allowed it, too. What is wrong with these people? As long as there is an audience, there will be someone to cater to them. Enter Dr. Phil. I'm not sure what can be done about that.
  2. Until a man possesses a uterus there will be no such thing as fairness in childbearing and rearing. Period. A dear friend of mine complained that the mother of his child "deceived me and said she couldn't have kids". My response, "And you believed her?" I laughed at him. Come on! That's the oldest one in the book! This woman saw a successful businessman's pocketbook, knew he was the type of guy who would "do the right thing" and exploited his desire to have sex without a condom to get at his money. And, and, he ended up raising the child because she cheated on him, got into drugs, spent some time in the Big House. She is despicable person. All he has to show for it is a beautiful young man who is smart and funny, who we all love. But yes, my friend went through hell in the process. I'm old fashioned this way: as a woman who gets pregnant when the thought just tumbles through her head, I know how easily "mistakes" happen when all birth control works perfectly and no one wants to procreate. You mean to tell me that a man has no responsibility if he buys a woman's line about her fertility? How about if she didn't lie but "oh shit" happens? What then? You see how fuzzy this all gets? What a mess in the courts. In my book, the way things are is the only logical (if unfair--boo hoo-to the man) way: when a man has unprotected sex, he makes the decision to trade that moment of bliss for a lifetime of baby. Would Dr. Helen or all the ranting men at her website like to pay for these babies with tax-payer dollars? Why, yes, that's exactly what I read somewhere. Um, no thank you. The two irresponsible people can deal with the consequences.
  3. So the next man on Dr. Phil want more kids and the wife is putting on the breaks. The men cry hypocrisy! Dr. Phil supported the wife who said no, while saying a man should support a baby he never wanted. Totally different situation, in my book. My personal philosophy is that she or he who doesn't want kids, doesn't want to have one more, wins. In that case, the guy who is determined not to have more kids anywhere is free to go get "fixed". It may upset his wife. Tough nuts. (Pardon the pun.) Conversely, if a woman doesn't want to have any more, she's done. Both partners have the choice to divorce and go find their Angelina Jolie and built-in family, ala Brad Pitt, do they not? Otherwise, forcing children on a spouse who doesn't want them is a terrible thing to do, either way. Men, does this sound fair to you? Now, more kids is another thing. A guy should be able to force his wife to have another? Are you kidding me? Until he owns the bits and pieces, he's going to have to live with this "unfairness." A woman could rightly retort that dealing with a parasitic growth is unfair. I've had girlfriends who were deathly ill their entire pregnancy. I know women who have died in the birth process. Is the man, husband, willing to compensate the woman for this risk? Have we really reached this place in society?
  4. Men are the new victims. Welcome, men, to the horde of pathetic losers claiming their life is ruined by someone else. Wallow along with the rest of us, will you? Isn't that nice? Dr. Helen thinks men should unite and fight for their rights. It's already happening. And it is crazy. In this men's movement, no thought is given to the children. Oh, yeah! Them....
IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE! Our society is filled with such selfish, self-absorbed, indulgent adults that all they can think about is their own gratification and getting away with it with no obligation. Call me a prude. I honestly don't give a rat's ass. The consequences of sex have always been children. Sometimes, but not always, contraception works. Our society falls apart at the seams when no one wants to care for the kid.

I find it fascinating when social libertarians decry the nanny state and then turn around and create a whole new class of people requiring the nanny state. Who will pay for these unfathered children? Not all are born to wealthy women--these are the lying skanks looking for a paycheck, remember? So should men be able to terminate contact, the woman is forced to raise a child?

But she isn't forced, say the Libertarians. She could have an abortion. This is another area I differ. I believe abortion is an abomination for this very reason. It already is used as coercive men. Wives who are told their husbands will divorce them if they have the baby and must decide between marriage and keeping her current kids with their father, and divorce and separation from family. Girlfriends, daughters are coerced to save the man a tough time. I also know of women who tell their boyfriends or husbands, "I'm doing it and there's nothing you can say." And men have similar decisions to make.

And meanwhile, millions of babies die because of selfish, amoral people. This hard-heartedness has created a despicable culture where women and children receive less respect. Men are not respected as a protector--women act as if they don't need them and men don't want to be needed. Everyone is turning in to a gender neutral selfish robot seeking personal gratification.

Yup, sounds like an absolutely fantastic way to build a society.


Anonymous said...

"It already is used as coercive men."

Not sure what you're saying there but I think I get the gist. I think that abortion on demand has put way too much power in the hands of men. I would even argue that it has become a *tool of the patriarchy* that has NOT been good for women at all.

Dr. Melissa said...

Tortured language, anon, sorry. I meant to write: It is already used coercively by men. Or, to put it better:

Men coerce women through abortion but it happens to her body and she lives with the physical and psychological consequences.

Christy're said...

I agree that abortion has become another way for men to use women and manipulate them.

However, to play devil's advocate, my friend's marriage dissolved when his wife aborted their baby, even after he begged her to have it and promised that he would take custody and full care of it. I have always wondered why--even as her spouse and the father of the baby--he had absolutely no rights do determine whether the child lived or died. And yet if he had been Joe One-Night-Stand and she had the baby, he'd be legally responsible for life.

Stephen said...


I completely agree. That scenario happened to a friend of mine, as well. Again, the solution is to outlaw abortion. If this selfish woman had to have the baby, he could have the child he desired.

She would have thought before having sex about the consequences. If she hated her husband that much she would have put her actions in line with her heart. No baby would have been made, right?

Women need to grow up, too. Abortion has resulted in infantile men and women.

Matthew said...

At the end of the day, this is yet another reflection of the lack of personal accountability in our society. If you want to have sex, you are saying that you are ok having kids. No contraception is 100% effective, so deal with it...

The other thing that drives me nuts about our society: We would rather have Dr. Phil or Oprah tell us what is "right" than just read the Bible and follow God's lead.

BTW, Dr. Phil is a buffoon.

kman said...

ROFL what do you really think about Dr Phil Mathew. :) I think he's hit or miss... of course I haven't seen him in quite a while. It sounds like his batting average has gone down.

I totally agree with you on sex = risk of pregnancy and the lack of accountability in our society. I see that as the biggest scourge of our society... No one is willing to take responsibility for their actions. Take Kerry's comments the other day... all he had to do was apologize for the words he ACTUALLY said and then tell everyone what he MEANT to say... but instead it was all the Republicans fault for twisting his exact words. Ugh.

Anonymous said...


thanks for posting something so sensible. Reading the comments at helen's blog is soul-sucking. It was good to come here for a breath of fresh air and find that both men and women are expected to take responsibility for their actions. I'm sure the men who post at helen's blog are a minority, but it does alarm me that some would argue that because women can be unfeeling creatures, men should be allowed to be just as unfeeling. And that's understating some of those arguments.

OBloodyHell said...

> She would have thought before having sex about the consequences.

Uh-huh. Sure. It certainly had that effect back in the period previous to the last 50 years when abortion was illegal, dangerous, and seriously frowned upon. There wasn't a single unwanted bastard anywhere on the planet, because women and men BOTH knew the consequences and avoided them unless they were ready to have kids!!!

Earth to Doc, Earth to Doc:

Let us know when your shuttle lands, huh?

I believe very strongly that we should discourage abortion with social pressure. Similarly with casual sex -- it's taken far too lightly by our culture.

Outlawing abortion, however, will do nothing more than result in the return of the barbaric practices of the backroom abortion, the coat-hanger, and the "D-N-C".

Dr. Melissa said...

O Bloody Hell,

And, we have seen how well social pressure has worked. Let's see, how many babies have been aborted since Roe? Over 45 million. A fat lot social pressure has done.

Now, how many "back ally abortions" occurred in the bad old days? We don't know. We do know that around 1,000 women died annually due to secondary infections, bleeding, etc. With modern medical practices we know that would be unlikely to happen.

Of course, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the likely result is that abortion will be legal in some states--California, New York and the whole of the Northeast, no doubt. What would happen is that women in other states would go to where it is legal.

Now that would reduce abortions.

Jason said...

I disagree, many couples, whether it's a one night stand or or happy couple don't want a baby at that point in time. That being said, does that mean as human beings they can't have and enjoy sex? I agree that solving this problem is for these 2 people to not have sex in the first place but sex is a natural part of life. That is undeniable.

Mistakes will happen and I don't think people should be punished to raise a baby that they didn't want. Especially if both future parents discussed beforehand and agreed that they didn't want children yet. And it's not because they should get a "get out of jail free card" but because the unwanted baby will grow up with many psychological problems sensing he/she was not wanted. Maybe neither parents are financially stable enough, mature enough, in love enough to create an environment to raise a baby in etc. On top of that, chances are the burden of an unwanted baby will most likely end or hurt the relationship of the mother and father. This of course, also isn't a good environment to raise a baby in.

You have to ask yourself, is forcing these people to raise this baby fair to the child? Is it fair to put someone in a situation where the chances are high that they will have many psychological problems? It's neither fair to the parents or the child in my opinion.

That being said, I don't think it's right that people should abuse the technology of abortion and think it's OK to not use some kind of contraception when enjoying sex. Avoidance of creating a child should be practiced if it is not wanted, abortion should be a last resort...