The free pass

The number of men in here who seem to think that marriage gives a man a certain amount of ownership over women is going into my growing Marriage Sucks For Straight Women file. Congrats! Men who think that they have ownership over their wives’ bodies have forsaken their right to said wives’ honest communication.

And, as the White Buffalo astutely pointed out, wives who think they have no ownership over their husband’s bodies abandon any right to protest his decision to insert any part of his body into another woman, or anything else, for that matter. It’s his body, after all, why on Earth would she have any say over what he does with it if he has none regarding her body.

It’s strange, especially in light of how so many women simultaneously hold the position that marriage gives a woman a certain amount of ownership over his possessions. How does Cthulhu’s Coven explain those claims in the apparent absence of any male claims on the married woman? Furthermore, Amynda is expressing an overtly anti-Christian point of view, as the Bible is quite clear on the fact that the husband holds a claim on the woman’s body, and the wife holds a claim on the man’s body. Since these claims are given voluntarily, even an atheist libertarian couldn’t possibly object to them.

The intellectual poverty of these mental midgets is truly astounding. But amusing, it’s always amusing. One merely wonders what is wrong with those young women who actually find this sort of thing to be persuasive.

A gentle correction

In which a mild admonition is administered to Zapata King:

And then there’s Vox. He’s allows dissent, but he does make sport of his readers. Here he’s getting rather brutal with Jonathan Birge. This, though, could just be a case of him casting stones at the high and mighty. It all depends on who is attacking who. The little guy should be given more lattitude in how he can attack the big guy. So, is this a case of equals attacking each other, or, as they say, is their asymmetry involved? Either way, we can assume that Dr. Jonathan Birge regreted his decision to send Vox an email.

Notice, though, the use of one of Vox’s favorite words. I hate that word, and I never use it to refer to women. Vox, on the other hand, uses it very often to refer to women. That’s one reason Vox Day is a punk. But punk is a soft insult to Vox, or not even an insult to Vox. His former days were the life of a punk.

Yes, punk is not so much the insult to any aficionado of William Gibson or the Original Cyberpunk his own bad self. And while I’m less openly enamored of the essential ethos of punk, Do It Yourself, most days I still live by it.

My blog creed is clear: thou shalt criticize in the mode which thou shalt receive criticism. (I except punctuation and grammar, as I simply don’t possess the Pan-Gargler’s innovative, free-associating approach to such things required to respond to him in like manner.)

In any event, I must take exception to Zapata King’s assertion that I use the word “bitch” very often to refer to women. The truth is that I usually use it to refer to men. When I wish to slur a woman, I refer to her as a “feminist”.

We shall eagerly await word of an appropriate edit. We apologize if the strong language or adult subject matter contained herein has offended any tender sensibilities. No animals were harmed during the production of this post.

Vox Popoli is an Equal Opportunity Offender.

I hope you don’t hold it against me

that I killed your baby…. Unsurprisingly, the High Priestess of Cthulhu’s Coven is primarily worried about the woman’s mental health. Screw the kid. Screw the guy who would otherwise have been expected to provide for, protect and love that child. Because it’s all about what women want right now… in nine years, that same woman will probably be single and getting shot up with fertility drugs and anonymously donated sperm.

I strongly suspect that my wife’s miscarriage last year was intentional, i.e., she had an induced abortion. At the time we were both 31 years old with a combined income of just over 100K. We were married for about a year. My wife was on medication for depression and anxiety (Paxil with the occasional Xanax). The pregnancy was unplanned and she expressed a desire to terminate the pregnancy a few days after we found out, saying she wasn’t ready to have kids yet, maybe in another year. I really wanted to have a baby and was very upset that she felt this way. We made an appointment for counseling about two weeks out. However, prior to that she claims she had a miscarriage.

From the sound of his letter, I suspect he’s right that his wife is lying to him. He doesn’t really sound like the kind of guy you can tell the truth to, since the options he gave her when she told the truth were, “Have a baby against your will” or “Be harangued until it’s too late for you to terminate.”

If he harbored such serious doubts as to her veracity, this guy should have gone ahead and examined his wife’s medical records, because as Amanda clearly demonstrates, merely believing that you have the right to an opinion about your wife’s desire to murder your unborn child makes you an evil person anyhow. You’re already there, dude, might as well learn the truth.

I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend an immediate slashing of ties to a man whose wife secretly aborted his child, much less one who is evidently a neurotic murderess. (I’m sorry, perhaps you’d prefer “is receiving chemical treatment for mental instability and was not ready for motherhood”.) The first duty of a man is to protect his children, and that includes protecting them from their mother if necessary.

As usual, feminists want it both ways. They want women to be able to murder a child if she doesn’t want it, but they want to use Big Daddy Government to make a man who doesn’t want a child to provide for it and its mother for 18 years. This makes no sense, but then, if feminists were capable of grasping logic, they wouldn’t be feminists. Equality demands that a man have an equal right to reject responsibility for a child he does not want, which is only one of the many reasons that I reject the concept of equality.

Anyhow, I don’t see why anyone would ever marry a woman who believes in abortion rights in the first place. If she buys into that reasoning, she’ll buy into the idea that marriage is an outmoded, unnecessary and Patriarchal institution oppressive to women too. Run that one past her a few times along with a few strategically-timed Friedan quotes and she’ll soon feel guilty for even wanting to get married, let alone pressuring you for it.

UPDATE – Coven member JBR adds this:

Does my husband have an interest on whether I take birth control pills for menstrual suppression? Whether I have an epidural for my child’s birth? Whether I breastfeed? How far does his opinion hold when it’s my body?

Well, I’m sure men will be glad to relinquish any interest in that sort of thing just as soon as women relinquish their interest in what men put in their bodies. It seems to me I’ve heard more women expressing a strong belief that they have some say in what their men eat, drink, smoke, dip and snort in a week than I’ve ever heard about epidurals in a lifetime.

So remember that the next time your girlfriend makes a disapproving face and a comment about how she doesn’t think you need that tequila shot. “Keep your matriarchy off of my body!”

The Mommy Wars continue

It’s not enough that they’re bringing the wage rate down and helping force other mothers into the workforce, but they can’t bother to spend as much time with their kids as I do with my exercise bike:

A typical working parent spends just 19 minutes a day looking after their children, official figures revealed yesterday. The startling research shows the devastating impact that working full-time has on children who hardly see their parents. With less than 20 minutes spent with their parents every day, this is only enough time to eat a quick breakfast together or have a couple of bed-time stories.

The Office for National Statistics looked at nearly 4,950 people over the age of 16 in Britain to find out what they do all day. The findings make grim reading for working parents who already worry that they spend too much time at work – and too little at home. Parents who work full-time spend just 19 minutes every day “caring for [their] own children”, according to ONS’s “Time Use Survey”, published yesterday.

A further 16 minutes is spent looking after their children as a “secondary activity”, but this means that they are doing something else – such as the weekly supermarket shop – at the same time.

While I’m sure those 19 minutes are serious quality time, it is telling that the average amount of time spent watching television is much greater. One ray of hope is that only six percent of working mothers actually want to work full time, indicating that they’re not quite the self-centered psychopaths that the one statistic seems to indicate.

Obviously, single mothers have no choice but to work, barring the sort of supportive family structure that is increasingly rare these days. And given the flexibility that the Internet provides, there’s no reason why many other mothers can’t work part-time, ideally from home. Any employer with a modicum of human decency should do what he can to accomodate such women, who are often completely dedicated to their families and make excellent employees. But to idealize the Hollywood dream of the fashionable mother with fabulous career and a fabulous relationship with the children with whom she spends 19 minutes per day is as ludicrous and as childish as a man who thinks he’s going to be James Bond.

I think we should all try to do our part in helping these women see the benefit of spending time with their children. So, any time you see children with a full-time childcare provider, be sure to address the nanny as “your Mommy”.