Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield, A Voice for Men’s pseudonymous PR genius, is definitely an out-of-the-box thinker.
Unfortunately, she seems to be an out-of-the-box thinker in the same way that some cats are out-of-the-box poopers, leaving odorous and disgusting little “gifts” everywhere she goes.
Today I want to take a look at one of her recent gifts: her, well, ingenious attempt to answer the question “How do we make society care about men as much as they care about women?”
I’m going to ignore the fact that even the basic premise of this question is backwards. Because her solution is even more backwards, if it’s even possible to be more backwards than completely backwards.
So what is this solution? Make it a felony for a woman to give birth, if the father doesn’t want a child.
Er, what? I’ll let her explain, because I sure can’t:
I’ve written before about legal parental surrender and allowing men to walk away from children they have contributed genetic material to, just as women may do, but having given the issue more thought, I am convinced that will only lead to increased hatred of men, not less. For a law surrounding reproductive rights to create a society that genuinely cares about men, the law needs more bite. …
Here it comes:
No human child may be born without the on going and affirmative consent of the adults involved.
What? What on earth does this even mean?
Gender neutral and perfectly clear. To give birth to a child without the explicit consent of everyone who contributed genetic material should be a felony and the child should immediately be seized and placed for adoption by the state.
Really? Yes, really:
In the beginning, to be sure, we are going to end up seizing a lot of babies under equal reproductive rights, but it will not take long for reality to sink in: make this choice and you will suffer for it.
I’m pretty sure the kid will suffer, too, but that never seems to be an issue with most MRAs.
So does Bloomfield’s, er, ingenious solution mean that men who don’t want children will be able to force women they’ve impregnated into having abortions? Oh, don’t be silly. They can give birth to all the babies they want, assuming they don’t mind nine months of pregnancy and, oh yeah, having the government seize their babies after they’re born.
[N]o one will be forced into abortions they do not want. If a woman falls pregnant with a child the father does not consent to, she will not be forced to abort that child. She is free to follow her conscience and give birth to that child. She will not be allowed to keep it, but she may give birth to it. Marital status will make no difference. If you do not have the consent of the father, the infant will be seized.
Uh, JB, what about those felony charges? You just said that doing this would be a felony. Is it too much for me to ask that your crackpot solution at least be internally consistent?
Apparently so, since she forgets about the felony bit and moves on to some of the wonderful things she thinks will happen if her proposal were to become law.
The most immediate effect of a law like this is that a market for male reproductive services emerges. A 35-year-old woman that no man on the planet has consented to reproduce with has a choice: she can pay a man to consent to parenthood. His consent means that he is obliged to support the resulting child so his fee will be:
Child support + ongoing expenses over 18 years + premium for looks, intelligence, height, etc.
That could be a very sweet deal, and men will suddenly be rather valued by women who choose to forgo any efforts towards attracting men into a mutually beneficial pair-bond.
The always classy Bloomfield illustrates this last point with a picture of feminist writer Jessica Valenti, a woman whom Bloomfield seems just a teensy bit obsessed with. It’s an odd choice, given that Valenti is married and a mother.
Bloomfield goes on to endorse “the presumption of shared parenting” in the wake of a divorce. This is a bit of an old chestnut with the Men’s Rights crowd, but Bloomfield has some, well, original thoughts about the possible consequences of making this the law.
Wanna break up your relationship? Have at it. But you will not take the children with you.
Really? What if your ex has never shown any interest in raising these children? What if your ex is an abuser? Apparently, in Bloomfield’s world, all accusations of abuse directed at men are false accusations. She skips merrily past this issue and indulges in more fantasizing:
This also creates a market. Let’s say a woman whom no man has consented to have a child with desperately wants children. She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly. This is gender neutral, of course. A man who wishes to have more children will also have to parent a woman’s existing children very well to prove his worth.
Bloomfield’s repeated attempts to claim that her proposals are “gender neutral” are a bit odd, given that the whole point of both proposals is to punish women. I’m not reading between the lines here: she states it outright.
Women have gotten away with shit from time immemorial because we have the babies. No society can live without us. It is the sole source of our value and always will be.
Wait, what? The only reason women have value is because they can give birth? What about those women who can’t have children?
Actually, wait a minute: if women’s worth is determined solely by popping out babies at regular intervals, why am I even bothering to read a blog post by a woman – a blog post the author evidently thinks is worthless, because it’s not a baby?
A society in which all women are brilliant engineers and not one of them will have children is a dead society.
Huh? A society in which all men are trapeze artists and not one of them will have children is also a dead society. You can’t really have much of a society if half the population works a single job. Or if no one in the society ever has kids.
Reproductive equality is the key to making a society that cares about men as much as women. Equality leads to more equality?
Lots of women ain’t gonna like that. Tough shit.
Yeah, I don’t think that “equality” is the reason that no decent or sensible person of any gender is going to like Bloomfield’s “solution” here. Somehow I think the whole baby-seizing business is going to be a bigger sticking point. Hell, even a few of the commenters at AVFM had a problem with that part of her proposal.
So the obvious question is: Does Bloomfield really want the government to go into the baby seizing business? Or is this a sort of “outrage clickbait,” an attempt to garner attention by saying the most outrageous thing she can think of?
I’m guessing the truth lies somewhere between these two poles; it’s reminiscent of Roosh’s “stop rape by legalizing it” post not that long ago. Sure, she’s interested in driving traffic to her blog and to AVFM. But she seems to actually believe at least most of the nonsense she posts. And, for what it’s worth, the commenters at AVFM seem to think she’s sincere.
One thing this clearly isn’t is satire – at least not using any definition of the word that anyone outside of AVFM would agree with.
Indeed, the only way this could be considered “satire” would be if Bloomfield was attempting to satirize the sort of terrible person who would actually propose baby seizing as a way to bring about equality.
But Bloomfield isn’t satirizing that sort of terrible person. She is that sort of terrible person.
“I am convinced that will only lead to increased hatred of men, not less.”
So children’s rights are about men’s feelings and not, you know, about children’s rights and well being? Alright.
“If you do not have the consent of the father, the infant will be seized.”
And if you do not have consent of the mother as well? I mean, I know they are obsessed with the though that all women can abort that easily and so on, but that is not how things work in real life, not that it’s a surprise in any way that they can’t understand what real life is about.
So if a woman notices she is pregnant when it’s past the time limit when you can still get an abortion and she just decides she doesn’t want the baby, that means she isn’t giving consent and so even if the father wants to keep the baby (she would have to pay child support in that case in our current society), the government will take it anyways? Ha, I doubt these dudes would agree with this; that’s too much “minsandryyyyy” if a man can’t win all of the time.
Also, how will a man (or woman for that matter) prove he didn’t consent? Will there be contracts signed before any sexual encounter? What if the birth control fails?
I mean, things were still better when they suggested men should be able to “abort” as well.
“Child support + ongoing expenses over 18 years + premium for looks, intelligence, height, etc.”
Like, what in the actual fuck? People will pay for “premiums”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
“Wanna break up your relationship? Have at it. But you will not take the children with you. / She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly.”
So who breaks up the relationship can’t ask for joint custody? What is that ever about.
That’s amazing how they never suggest men should ask for joint custody more, by the way. Most women have the custody because men don’t ask for it more often (both sole or shared custody).
“Let’s say a woman whom no man has consented to have a child with desperately wants children. She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly.”
Well, in that scenario, a woman who desperately wants children could and should adopt one of the many, many children that will be filling the orphanage in a culture like that. That will be the Country with the highest number of orphans in the world.
“Women have gotten away with shit from time immemorial because we have the babies.”
Like being treated as cattle because men wanted to own your children as property as well? Like being abandoned after giving birth in a time when women couldn’t work, being left to poverty and hunger? Like being treated as baby machines and nothing more than that? Alriiight.
“It is the sole source of our value and always will be.”
If we see humans as simply animals, that would kinda be the case; females have a great, immense value in nature: they bear the offspring, give birth, raise them and teach them, mostly on their own (most mammal species). The problem is, if she is looking at it in this way, that will become MISANDRISSSTTT as soon as you look at the human males or mammal males’ value in general, as males actually not only have less value or importance when it comes to reproduction, they are usually much more disposable than females, hence the reason they are the ones to go first when defending their group, etc. Nature doesn’t care if many males die and suffer, in fact, nature intends them to do it so females and their offspring stand a better chance at surviving.
Not to mention that it’s females who choose males for reproduction. They choose the strongest (translated as tall and toned/muscular in human beings), most beautiful (again fitness plays a big part) young adults (the only ones with valuable, strong sperm) get chosen the most, even by older females, making many or most of the other males never getting the chance to reproduce (sometimes females still fool around with them, though; it’s common that females will try to make sure they get pregnant, so “orgies” with many males aren’t uncommon, after she copulates with the chosen, best male around first). And this kind of TRUTH… well, I don’t believe the MRAs enjoy it at all.
“Reproductive equality is the key to making a society that cares about men as much as women.”
Hmm, and what about children’s right ONCE AGAIN?
These people suck, for real.