>The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys
>
 |
| I’m walkin’ here! |
Pierce Harlan of the False Rape Society has broken past the limits of mere logic, arguing that the fact that a small number of guys at a couple of events have put on women’s clothing to raise money for women’s causes means that rape culture doesn’t exist. That seems to be the main message of a post of his today with the baffling title “Boys in bras, boys in heels, boys in pink — all to raise money for women’s causes: Is this the ‘rape culture’ we hear so much about?”
Harlan, posting as “Archivist,” complains about several recent campus events, in which college guys have literally put on heels (to raise money and awareness about sexual assault) and bras (to raise money for breast cancer research). Harlan isn’t thrilled about the causes themselves: he has sneeringly derided sexual assault awareness as “a supposedly good cause” and, while acknowledging that breast cancer research is theoretically a good thing, he’s evidently tired of hearing about it.
But he seems even more hot and bothered about the cross-dressing by guys he calls “chivalrous clowns,” describing the bra-wearing as “creepy” and deriding the guys “prancing around in high heels.” Apparently, as Harlan sees it, these fellows are just doing it to impress the chicks:
young men will do pretty much anything to help, to curry favor with, and to be admired by young women.
It is heinous to suggest that attitudes of sexual aggression and dominance over women are normalized, rationalized, and excused by the alleged beneficiaries of “patriarchy” in our culture. In point of fact, the foolish young buffoons in heels and bras are far more representative of young masculinity in our culture than is the young rapist.
There’s not a lot of logic in this, er, argument, but in an earlier posting Harlan elaborates on the distaste he feels towards the “Walk A Mile In Her Shoes” event, which was held at the University of Montana (clearly a hotbed of radical feminism).
It would be downright shocking if this or similar events ever prevented a single sexual assault from occurring because: (1) prancing around in high heels and similar useless stunts has nothing to do with preventing sexual assault; and (2) the vast majority of young men who strutted their stuff and who participate in such events are highly unlikely to ever rape a woman. …
If we want to curb sexual assault, we need to teach our young people the truth, but the truth doesn’t jibe with the current rape meta-narrative that holds only one gender responsible for stopping it. …
Young people generally do not understand that women experience much greater after-the-fact regret than men do. Sometimes feelings of regret are translated into feelings of “being used,” and sometimes feelings of “being used” are misinterpreted or purposefully misconstrued as “rape.”
Asking the police, a judge, or a jury to sort out what happened in an alcohol-fueled tryst based on a “he said/she said” account puts an impossible burden on our law enforcement and judicial apparatuses. …
There is no “rape culture”; there is no “rape continuum.” Rape is committed by social deviants, not the nice boy next door. It is almost a certainty that none of the charming young buffoons who strutted around in women’s heels yesterday will ever rape a woman. …
The sad, politically incorrect fact of the matter is that young women have far more power to stop rape than innocent young men by not putting themselves in situations where rape is more likely to occur.
There’s a lot of bullshit condensed into these short paragraphs. There’s victim-blaming, of course: do we regularly attack murder victims for “putting themselves in situations where murder is likely to occur?” There’s his weird complaint that actually investigating and prosecuting date rape puts an “impossible burden” on police and the judicial system: should we simply stop enforcing laws against all crimes that are hard to investigate or prosecute? And there’s his unwillingness to accept the simple fact that rapists all too often do look exactly like the “nice boy next door.” As for his complaint that these events target the wrong people, see here for an argument as to why it makes sense to raise awareness specifically amongst those men who are NOT likely to rape women.
In the past a few MRAs have asked me why I put the False Rape Society blog in my “boob roll” — and formerly in my “enemies list.” This is why. Spreading blatant misinformation and blaming victims: these are not exactly good ways to actually reduce the number of men falsely accused of rape.
And here’s another thought for the MRAs reading this, Harlan included: if you are truly as concerned about testicular or prostate cancer — or any other male malady — as you so often and so loudly claim to be, take a few moments away from your constant complaining about feminism and/or women, and actually hold a fund raiser yourselves. In a comment on his latest post, Harlan writes: “My problem is this: how about an event to raise funds for male suicide, etc. once in a while?” You know how events like these happen? PEOPLE ORGANIZE THEM. There is nothing stopping MRAs from organizing such an event on their own. How about it, guys?
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on March 22, 2011, in antifeminism, MRA, oppressed men, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, transphobia, violence against men/women, white knights. Bookmark the permalink. 131 Comments.
>Glenn Beck has some vile tripe Vile tripe from Glenn Beck? No way.
>This is a lie to excuse rape, obviously.Break out the tin-foil hats, those evil pick-up artists are plotting ways to excuse strangling a woman while they forcibly penetrate her, obviously. Never mind the fact that even male criminals look down on rapists and accusations of rape have been used to justify lynchings as far back as the antebellum period.Feminists know jack shit about the heterosexual male opinion. Only a very, very small minority of men would not ruthlessly assault a man who was convicted of rape - take a look at how rapists are treated in prison. They often receive treatment many times worse than what they subjected on their victim, assuming it was not a Duke Lacrosse-type trial with overzealous feminist harpies screeching from the sidelines.
>DSC-lucky! I only get access to AZ's and the 9th circuit appellate cases on Westlaw and have to look up federal cases outside the 9th circuit on Justia/OpenJurist. And I have never seen the model penal code in its entirety so I stand corrected and am shocked! Shocked! I tells you that Arizona actually has a better than average view of sexual assault.
>Not really-we were one of the few states that made spousal rape a serious offense.
>@ColdThat sounds like rape to me. Your girlfriend should have stopped the moment you asked her to stop. As for whether the police would even take it seriously, it's a matter of chance. Honestly, we can't guarantee that they'll take any rape victims seriously, male or female. I'd hope they would listen, FWIW from this feminist.
>But expecting feminists to drop what they are doing to come care for your pet issue is just one more instance of a man insisting a woman take care of his needs first.I never knew prostate cancer or male suicide were both "pet issues" - I guess that goes to show how little feminists care about men. Anyway, because feminism is about equality, one would expect them to devote equal time to male issues of equal import.We don't actually expect you to do that because you're either lying man-haters or misguided/self-loathing honorary women.Now, don't you feminists bitch about the Men's Rights Movement, Male Studies, etc. being unnecessary? You just admitted the shortcomings of feminism - indifference towards male issues - and justified the existence of a MRM! Hence, quit your bitching and shaming and let the MRM do its job. The best you can do in this case, as you have established by your inaction, is to sit down and shut up.
>Honestly, we can't guarantee that they'll take any rape victims seriously, male or female. They took the Duke Rape case pretty fucking seriously.
>Break out the tin-foil hats, those evil pick-up artists are plotting ways to excuse strangling a woman while they forcibly penetrate her, obviously.Rape culture isn't a tinfoil conspiracy. Its existence has been well-understood for decades and all your ranting about it won't change that fact.Never mind the fact that even male criminals look down on rapists and accusations of rape have been used to justify lynchings as far back as the antebellum period.You can't really be this stupid. Haha, just kidding, of course you can. As DSC pointed out above, the way society at large responds to a rape depends on the perceived social status of the victim. Many, many, many of the lynchings you're referring to were cases of a black male raping a white woman. Obviously that's not something the white folk of the antebellum (or postbellum, for that matter) period are going to tolerate. A poor man raping a rich woman was likely to be similarly treated.But if a rich man raped a poor woman, or a white man raped a black woman? Hellz no they're not going to get lynched. Ultimately, rape culture (more so than the act of rape itself) is about putting women in their place, so if you're socially superior to the rape victim, you're pretty damn likely to get away with it.
>Hence, quit your bitching and shaming and let the MRM do its jobWe're not stopping you. It's just that the MRM doesn't seem to have a job beyond spending all day on the internet pissing and moaning that women are out there getting away with stuff.They took the Duke Rape case pretty fucking seriously.Ah, the MRAs' only weapon: harp on the same few isolated cases and pretend they're the norm.
>Ultimately, rape culture (more so than the act of rape itself) is about putting women in their place, so if you're socially superior to the rape victim, you're pretty damn likely to get away with it.See, you skitter away the treatment of the accused in the Duke Lacrosse case like a cockroach from a floodlight. If you're not willing to explain it, keep the snark to yourself. Good girl.
>e-string:You might not be a student of the history of the women's movement, so probably aren't aware that 2nd wave feminists did a lot of work to change rape from a capital crime.Why? Because prosecutors and juries were often unwilling to charge white men for their "boys will be boys" crimes and really fast to charge/kill black men often on slim/no evidence.
>Ah, the MRAs' only weapon: harp on the same few isolated cases and pretend they're the norm.Oh, but it is. Did you see how the feminists rubbed themselves to the thought of rich white males being incarcerated? You expect us to bang our heads against a wall until we forget about it just because it was an "isolated case" and 95% of feminists totally did not find the accused guilty until proven innocent? You feminists brandished your true colors, and we will not let it, or a single other example of your Dworken-esque bigotry, be forgotten.
>String-you bring up one incident and run with it as if it is the same case every single time.
>Okay, read the news links posted here if you're not too much of a holy and elitist intelligentsia to lower yourself to the level of facts:http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/You don't have to read the posts, just look at the news reports and determine for yourself how those cases tend to be handled. Look at how the accused are treated during and after their accusations. Look at how the "victim" almost always gets off without even a slap on the wrist.If you raise your skirt and scream at the thought of reading anything incongruous with your bigotry, then you probably aren't worth the bandwidth anyway.
>Hmmm…based on a quick review of the top five stories:1. Does not refer to an actual false claim.2. Does refer to an actual false claim.3. Does not refer to an actual false claim.4. Subject of this particular post and again, does nothing to show an actual false claim.5. Does refer to an actual false claim (with a criminal charge of false claim filed against the woman.)So of the five posts-only two talk about false claims and in the case of the last one, criminal charges are pending against the woman in question. So apparently your problem is that there are false claims that result in criminal charges? Is that not what you wanted?And on Monday, the poster actually states that anyone who is taken seriously by a police officer when reporting a rape deserves to be treated as a liar.
>Maybe we should be putting women in jail until they are proven to be telling the truth about a rape.Will that make you happy? Of course it will but you would never admit it.
>Of course it will but you would never admit it.Guilty until proven innocent.Hmmm…based on a quick review of the top five storiesYeah, I was assuming you'd be smart enough to skip the editorials and read the actual false rape articles. You know, more than two of them. But, as is the case with the feebleminded, you give them an inch and they take a mile.
>Maybe we should be putting women in jail until they are proven to be telling the truth about a rape.It's okay, you can lie about me like a good little feminist. I don't respect your intelligence enough to care what your inane whims are. Don't be mistaken, though, your mouthiness can be quite useful in the proper context.
>@e-string"We can't guarantee that the police will listen to rape victims." =/= "The police never listen to rape victims."
>@Amnesia - The problem, if the false rape cases documented on the blog (which are woefully inaccessible to feminists) are correct, is that police take rape cases too seriously. Would you like to hear about a false rape case that bypassed the police and went directly into two honorary women's self-loathing hands? Or how about the horrific idea to make accused men guilty until proven innocent?Yeah, we need to take rape accusations more seriously, when innocent men are being sodomized and assaulted.
>@e-string:http://www.justicefellowship.org/justice-fellowship-homeYou're welcome.
>Geez, based on your attitude, I cannot imagine why I would think that you hold the view I said you do-in your secret heart of hearts of course.As for the editorializing-if you look at a blog about false rape reports-you reasonably expect actual posts about false rapes not about whining that women have views that are different then "all women are lying liars who should never be believed under any circumstances."
>Yeah, we need to take rape accusations more seriously, when innocent men are being sodomized and assaulted.Statistically, there are almost certainly a few innocent men being sodomized in prison right now. But there are far more women being raped by someone close to them right now.But of course you only care about (and greatly exaggerate) the former because you're a sexist piece of shit.
>Geez, based on your attitude, I cannot imagine why I would think that you hold the view I said you do-in your secret heart of hearts of course.Good feminist, you've shown how you girls think you know men better than they know themselves. But of course you only care about (and greatly exaggerate) the former because you're a sexist piece of shit.Feminists are such happy, benevolent people who are always smiling. Be a feminist, it will make your poor, chronically pissed off about vague groups such as an elusive "patriarchy", and an effeminate cross-dresser! Oh, feminism is sounding better by the second. Thank you for being a good mouthy feminist, and thank you for your testimonial! This one is a keeper!
>triplanetary"if I were falsely accused of murder I wouldn't suddenly decide that most murder accusations are false and that suspicion should immediately be cast upon the accuser."Apples and oranges.Nobody gets convicted of murder on an accusation alone. Evidence is needed.EV - I - DENCE!!!Rape is the only crime with serious legal and social penalties that a man can be convicted of on a woman's word ALONE. (FYI That's why police put women under so much pressure when they cry rape. NOT because they are a bunch of evil oppressive patriarchs you dolts! It's to minimize the likelyhood of an innocent person being convicted because there is usually little elso to go on but her word.)And as far as I can tell no other crime carries such severe penalties because… um…why?Oh yes! Evidently for no other reason than because women don't like it very much. (Whatever the reasons it sure ain't got nothin' to do with adultery nowadays now does it?)An oppressive patriarchy that sends men to jail for hurting a womans feelings. Oh, the humanity.
>Google informs me that you're full of shit*.Sample quote: Rape in this country is surprisingly easy to get away with. The arrest rate last year was just 25 percent - a fraction of the rate for murder - 79 percent, and aggravated assault - 51 percent. *Not that I needed the confirmation.
>"A five month CBS News Investigation has found a staggering number of rape kits — that could contain incriminating DNA evidence — have never been sent to crime labs for testing."teacher: Anybody know why class?class: Oh me! No me! Me! Me! Me! Oh, I know! Me! Me!teacher: Yes you in he back? student: Because in the majority of cases the females are a bunch of liars who know perfectly well that the kits contain no incriminating DNA?teacher: WRONG! It's because the Illuminati knows perfectly well that each of those rape kits HAS incriminating DNA and it is acting to protect guilty men because big important dudes give that big a shit about little unimportant dudes.That's why most homeless folks are men because the Illuminati cares so much for them.And now it's time for math.Repeat after me class 2+2=5.
>By the way I'd like apologize for not being more clear earlier.When I mentioned EV-I-DENCE I was refering to the fact that (in cases of penetration) claiming consent was ultimately just a matter of his word against hers.I didn't exactly intend for you to think "Duh, evidensh? Duh, I'll show him evidensh!" and go through all the trouble to produce a lamestream news story. But I thank you just the same.
>In other words, "Your evidence disproves my worldview so I'll just dismiss it with pathetic excuses!"
>In other words, "Your evidence disproves my worldview so I'll just dismiss it with pathetic excuses!" And what pathetic excuses?Logic?Critical thinking?Thinking for myself?Thinking period?Even common sense itself?Your a follower. Admit it. A pathetic little follower boy. "I'm not a rapist."You are not a rapist until they decide that you are! You can either continue to kiss up to your girlfriends asinine feminist drivel ala Stockholm syndrome or you can wake the fuck up before it's too late.
>@e-string, actually, the social attitudes in regards to prison rapes fit very well with my theory. Prisoners are of low social status and are seen as having little social value. Hence rapes and sexual assaults of prisoners are treated by many as acceptable. Note how well this fits-those who engage in rape apologism wherein the victims are prisoners rarely to never argue or believe the victim actually consented, what they believe is that these rapes are acceptable. The solution to prison rape is not to take other rape accusations less seriously, but to take rape accusations with prisoners as victims more seriously. Rape apologism does not help victims who are raped while incarcerated. The fact that you tacitly condition rape of prisoners being serious on their being "innocent" disurbs me. A person being a guilty prisoner not justify allowing or encouraging people to rape them. Innocent or guilty, no prisoner deserves to be raped. No one deserves to be raped.
>EWME: Man convicted on expert testimonyOne guy was executed.Things like the Innocence Project would not exists but for the fact that people are frequently convicted on testimony alone.
>Not to be a futilist or anything, but I suspect prison rape is going to be tolerated by the people that matter as long as it is seen as a natural enforcement of manly hierarchy. That is something they believe in a lot more deeply than any moral issues involved.
>Naturally, but that's why feminists want to get rid of the manly hierarchy altogether.
>Well, duh. It can oppress men just as it does women, which makes it that much easier for the ones who play by the rules to advance in the hierarchy.
>A couple more examples for EWME's perusal:http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Stephan_Cowans.phphttp://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/William_Dillon.phpIn both cases these unfortunate fellows were convicted due to faulty eyewitness testimony. Rape, it seems is not the only crime you can be arrested for "on an accusation alone." You can get slammed with a count of murder if some fool who can't see well in the dark tells somebody you look kinda like a guy kinda near a crime scene.Now, I don't believe false accusations of rape are an "insignificant" problem. People who say they are disgust me. On the other hand, I not very fond of the general MRA meme that male-on-female rape shouldn't be taken seriously (or is "meaningless" or "shouldn't even be a crime" or whatever). I hope the above articles demonstrating false convictions of murder based on not much more than accusations (from faulty eyewitnesses and such) help you see why.
>Now, I don't believe false accusations of rape are an "insignificant" problem.They are.People who say they are disgust me.I'm comfortable with that.
>They are.How certain are you? In one corner of your mouth you say a significant number of rapes are not tried, and out of the other spews claims that false rape convictions are insignificant. It seems you're speaking more from dogma than deduction.
>I'm comfortable with [disgusting people].You seem comfortable with a lot of views and prejudices the general public is not. It's troubling that you want to impose your opinions on others.
>You guys. What do you want, really? Do you just want more latitude to practice Game, or do you really feel it's your birthright to brutalize the babes? Are you just a knot of self-justifying butthurt in a paranoic echo chamber, or do you really intend to draw swords against womankind for the sake of the man to the left and the man to the right?
>It's troubling that you want to impose your opinions on others.Eh, I don't think so, honestly. Out of respect for our host, I won't go overboard with some ad hominem attack, but a simple glance at the "freelance writing" part of his blog is enough to tell me he doesn't and probably never will have enough influence to "impose" anything on anybody. He can't really do much besides make a nuisance of himself on other people's blogs. Just ignoring him is the best course of action, IMO.That said, I think my point still stands-while it's indeed a terrible injustice that people are falsely convicted of rape based on such flimsy grounds, people are also falsely convicted of murder on equally flimsy grounds. If we want to take rape less seriously because of this, we'd also have to do the same with murder.
>@thevagrantsvoice - I agree with you on the murder case, actually. I would not word it as "less seriously" necessarily, but we have a consistent paranoia about shootings and strangers' mental states which often infringes on the autonomy of others. While suspicious or foreboding behavior warrants intervention, the definition has been expanded to include a broad swath of the male population. I believe this perception of men as potential murderers and rapists is one primary cause of social anxiety in teenagers and young adults. Tragically, social anxiety will in some cases serve as a catalyst for these tragedies, which increases paranoia. The cycle is self-perpetuating.Your post is insightful, and the fact that erroneous murder convictions exist to be overturned is very much an issue to men and those who love them.
>While the bits of sympathy from those who agree that I was raped are not unappreciated, the fact is that absolutely zero harm came to me. IF, on the other hand, she had gotten pregnant and I was complaining about having to pay child support to a woman who raped me, I somehow doubt I would get one iota of sympathy from feminists. I certainly have yet to see ANY opposition from feminists to the strict liability theory of child support.
> Google provides me with: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1027927.eceAccording to the details of that case she was convicted because she initially claimed that she never did anything sexual to the guy, and that claim was refuted by DNA evidence. So, at that point she said it was consensual but she had already damaged her own credibility beyond repair. I am 99.9% certain that had she not been ignorant of DNA and claimed from the very beginning that she performed oral sex on him with his consent, she would not have even been prosecuted. I am also 100% certain that had the genders been reversed, the man would have received a longer sentence than nine months in jail and his name would have been released.
>There. How's victim blaming working out for you NOW , assholes?Oh Amused, when are you going to learn to actually do some research before spouting nonsense and making a fool of yourself? Here's an article on The Spearhead advising men on how to avoid becoming victims of false rape accusations. Unlike feminists, MRAs aren't so divorced from reality as to think that being reminded of their own agency constitutes "victim blaming".
>Link was eaten, here it is again:http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/18/do-you-feel-lucky-punk-aka-profiling-the-perpetrators/
>Here is an article a friend posted on Facebook regarding the myth of "she is asking for it."Unless someone has actually claimed that some women wear short skirts because they specifically want to get raped, this is a strawman argument. For the linguistically challenged, the expression "asking for trouble" doesn't mean that a person is literally asking for trouble or going out of their way to get in trouble; it means that they are foolishly disregarding the reality of a situation and acting in a manner that is likely to bring unwanted trouble upon them.
>Oh for the love of God, does this guy ever get to his actual point?
>He can't really do much besides make a nuisance of himself on other people's blogs. Just ignoring him is the best course of action, IMO.The fact that I don't like you doesn't make me a nuisance on Manboobz. You're welcome to ignore me, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it.
>I'm comfortable with [disgusting people].Note that this is not in fact what I said.You seem comfortable with a lot of views and prejudices the general public is not.And? That has pretty much no effect on whether I'm right or wrong. Charles Manson held a lot of views that the general public wasn't comfortable with, as did 19th century abolitionists. The general public's approval doesn't have much to do with anything.It's troubling that you want to impose your opinions on others."Wanting to impose one's opinions on others" is called politics. Yes, I want my opinions to be reflected in policy. However it's my position that my opinions are less restrictive on personal freedom and self-determination than existing policy or the policy proposals of MRAs, especially when it comes to gender rights.
>However it's my position that my opinions are less restrictive on personal freedom and self-determination than existing policy or the policy proposals of MRAs, especially when it comes to gender rights.Do you think a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility during the same period of time that a woman can abort their future child? Do you think that we need strong-armed legislation and bribery (tax deductions, etc.) to force businesses to hire more women? Do you believe universities should be forced to finance women-only sports teams, regardless of the economic viability of such organizations?
>e491, thank you for your response-the fact that you can acknowledge the same reasoning in regards to murder as to rape speaks well to your honesty. I still think it's problematic even from an MRA standpoint, however. Remember, as many MRAs point out, violence is a male issue-most victims of it are male. Most men are better off being suspicious of other men, because statistically, they're more likely to be killed by another man than a woman is. Thus, by taking murder "less seriously" (forgive the wording, it's the best I could think of at the moment), while you may be improving things for men accused of violence, you may be making things less safe for the victims of violence, who are primarily men.
>"Do you think a man should be able to abort his financial responsibility during the same period of time that a woman can abort their future child?" Men actually have no financial responsibility during that period. They do not have to pay the medical bills (the cost of delivery in a hospital in the US, without complications, is 9-17 thousand), food bills, lost wages, etc. of pregnant women. So, when you are calling for men to pay half of pregnancy expenses, get back to me on this one and we can discuss physical burdens taken by the pregnant person as well. Also, take note of the fact that bio mothers do not have more rights than bio fathers during pregnancy. Surrogacy cases demonstrate this well. It is the surrogate, not the bio mom, who can choose to abort, even when it is absolutely certain the bio mom will be the custodial mom after birth. The pregnant person is the one with the right to abort, it is pregnancy status and not being the egg provider that gives one that right. We know you are devastated over not having a womb, but that is no excuse to try and control pregnant women.
>A woman can give birth to the child, at which point it is outside of her body and so no biological distinction can be made between the nature of her parenthood and that of the father, and then get rid of it under safe haven laws, thus abdicating all parental responsibility. Men don't have this option. That's a massive inequality and there is no way to argue around it. Not only that, but any attempt to argue around it is going to stink of misandry.
>@Cold, nothing you just said relates to your abortion position. You are now discussing custody after birth, which is a different subject. Stay on topic here.On safe have laws: These laws do not exempt the person from child support should the other parent take custody (or financial payments to the state during state custody http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/children_family_services/SafeHaven/GovernorColumn.pdf). They are also gender neutral, men may drop infants off at safe havens and be exempted from abandonment charges/relinquish custody just like women. These safe haven law are also rarely used. Lousianna, one of the poorest states in the country, reports only 12 cases in a 6 year period (http://www.dss.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=278). So hardly a "massive" issue by reasonable useage of that word.
>I don't have an abortion position other than that in whatever window women are allowed to abort, men should be allowed to abort their paternity.Safe haven laws may be written gender neutral, but if the father took the baby from the hospital against the mother's will and dropped it off at one to avoid paternal responsibility he would face criminal charges.The fact remains that women, and only women, have a set of legal options available so that an unwanted pregnancy never has to result in unwanted parental responsibility, even if you rule out abortion entirely. As I warned you before, any attempt to argue around this obvious fact is going to stink of misandry.
>@Cold "if the father took the baby from the hospital against the mother's will and dropped it off at one to avoid paternal responsibility he would face criminal charges." If he is being charged, it would be with kidnapping for taking the child when he was not permitted to do so. Women are not exempt from kidnapping charges either simply because they use safe haven laws either. He can never be charged for abandonment for doing this if he follows the safe haven laws that would also exempt a woman from abandonment charges.
>P.S. Cold, this is what I was referring to as your abortion position " in whatever window women are allowed to abort, men should be allowed to abort their paternity." And you still have not justified it, you have merely changed the subject to discussions about after birth rights.
>The justification comes in the form of a basic appeal to the concept of legal equality. If you want to hold the position that only women should have the legal options to never become responsible for a child as a result of an unwanted pregnancy unless they explicitly choose to take it, then you can do so but that makes you a female supremacist by definition. Perhaps you are ok with that label.
>Name calling does not an argument make cold. Demonstrate "legal inequality" exists here, please. Shit, at least try to make an argument to that effect.
>As I said, if you take the position I described then you are, by definition, a female supremacist. That's not name-calling; it's a statement of fact.If you can't see the legal inequality after having it explained over and over again as I have done then you're never going to see it, either because you can't bring yourself to admit that it exists or because you lack the logical processing capabilities to understand it. Again, that's not name calling, just stating the facts.