The Indictment of Reproductive Slavery and A Voice For Men
Written By Naomi Chambers
INTRODUCTION
Reproductive rights are human rights - or so it seems. This is the theme of John the Other's opening paragraph in his blog Reproductive Slavery. He asserts that for him at least, reproductive rights are human rights. He argues that every person has the right to self-ownership. Every person has the right to choose whether or not they will reproduce. That being said, I cannot see how any moral person would disagree with him. He concludes paragraph one, stating that in the real world, only women have the right to choose whether or not to reproduce themselves. Men have no such rights. Therefore, reproductive rights are women's rights, not human rights.
One of the first issues I wish to examine, is whether slavery is the correct term to use when we are discussing men's rights to reproduce themselves. From a legal perspective, when sperm enters a woman's body, the woman has legal ownership of the sperm. The heart of John's argument seems to be, if a man does not want a baby, and the woman does, does he have the same reproductive rights as the woman? Can he force a woman to have an abortion?
I think the statement, "reproductive rights are human rights," is a misleading cliché. The reason is simple. Men and women do have the right to reproduce themselves. I know of no law forbidding men from having children. I know of no law forcing sterilizations upon men. Although I strongly believe that people who carry certain genetic diseases should not reproduce when there is a likelihood they will pass that disease onto their offspring, the fact is - everyone has the right to reproduce. Therefore, the right to reproduce is a human right extended to both women and men.
But, that is not what John is arguing. He is arguing, "the right to not reproduce, is a human right." Herein, I must also agree that the right to not reproduce is a human right. He goes on to write, "her body, her choice." So what we are talking about, is about a man's right to not reproduce. Men do have the right to not reproduce themselves. John has yet to explain why men are choosing not to exercise their right to condoms and vasectomies, but he does raise important points about male birth control which I will address later in this blog.
Let's imagine for a moment you are in a long-term relationship, and you do not want a baby. Consider your options: A woman can choose from eleven forms of contraception- including permanent sterilization, barrier methods, the pill, hormonal birth control rings, patches and injectables. A man can choose two: vasectomy or a condom. John argues it is not fair that women have many types of contraception available to them, while men have only two forms of contraception. He argues that the men who choose not to exercise their right to contraception (condoms and vasectomies), instead choose to foolishly trust that the woman is taking care of things.
MALE CONTRACEPTION
 |
| MRA Conspiracy Theorist |
Let us entertain a few prevailing theories as to why chemical birth
control is not available to men.
Theory One: An extensive, covert operation of power hungry feminists work
to keep birth control in only female hands so that women can extort child
support from men.
Theory Two: We have never invested in male birth control because men have been unwilling to dedicate the time, energy or financial resources to contraception. Men have been unwilling to go to the doctor, endure the bodily invasion of contraception or suffer any of the health related problems. Men unwilling to use condoms or get vasectomies are obviously not willing to get an injection once a month.
Theory Three: It is much easier to stop a woman's once-a-month
ovulation than it is to stop the millions of sperm created by men every day. If
men produced only one sperm, once a month, then it would be a much easier task.
DR ELSIMAR COUTINHO
John's blog claims that the male birth control pill is currently used in China, and not being offered in the West. The only evidence he has to support this argument comes entirely from the testimony of Dr. Elsimar Coutinho in a Brazilian television show. In his blog, John recounts Dr. Coutinho's alleged disconcerting encounter in Budapest with Betty Friedan (née Bettye Naomi Goldstein).
My first task was to locate corroborating evidence that the
Budapest event occurred and how many other people heard the rant, “no male pill! no male pill!” I conducted
several Google searches for ‘Betty
Freidan Budapest’ and found only one event Freidan attended. It was the
1974 World Population Conference. I was not able to find a shred of evidence
that Dr. Coutinho was there, or spoke with Freidan about the male birth
control.
 |
| my search |
The Brazilian doctor seems to be the only person who records this disconcerting event with Friedan in Hungary or that male birth control has been used for decades in China. I was fortunate enough to find Dr. Coutinho's grandson. He posted a blog about his grandfather Dr. Elsimar Coutinho. Coutinho's grandson had some interesting things to say about his grandfather's Brazilian interview: "In this clip he talks about a discussion with Betty Friedan who he calls ugly. He also confuses a scientific congress in Bucharest when he had to meet Ceausescu to another in Budapest which is the one with Friedan. "
My second task was to learn more about the miracle male
birth control Dr. Coutinho claims has been successfully used in China for
decades. The substance is called Gossypol. It is crude cotton seed oil. The
Chinese and Brazilians did conduct many tests because the oil does cause some
male infertility. Studies found gossypol has several serious flaws. There was a
high rate of hypokalemia, causes symptoms of fatigue, muscle weakness, and at
its most extreme, paralysis. Moreover, there is a wealth of current research
proving that this crude oil causes problems not only in humans, but also in
livestock.
In the mid-1990s, the Brazilian pharmaceutical company
Hebron announced plans to market a low-dose gossypol pill called Nofertil, but
the pill never came to market. The reality is that men who had been taking the
drug for a long time required higher doses to get the same effect. When they
stopped taking the drug, and tried to start a family, they suffered either low
fertility or infertility. The Chinese stopped research because their men
suffered the same side effects. To further prove the correctness of my claims, I will be linking a peer reviewed PubMed article proving gossypol causes infertility in men.
The way I see it, John the Other must be maintaining that
the secret, evil, covert feminists tampered with all the independent studies in
Brazil, China, and every other nation on planet Earth that came to the same conclusion
that gossypol is dangerous for men. From the MRA forums, it appears the only way human beings can outsmart this evil, covert operation is to put on a hat made of tin foil and swallow a red pill. Perhaps the second explanation is that he knows gossyprol is dangerous for boys and men, but simply does not care. The real problem is many radical feminists and men's rights activists are unsavory characters willing to publish blogs riddled with errors, sacrificing honesty, ethics, morality and fairness just to promote their own agenda.
FACTS ABOUT CURRENT CHINESE MALE BIRTH CONTROL
The fact is that China has not developed and used a male birth control pill. Goodness, if the Chinese had developed such a thing, given their population control, they would have been forcing men to take it against their will decades ago. Are we to believe that the Chinese prefer forcing women to have abortions rather than to force men to take birth control? I suppose with the tin foil hat and the red pill, anything is possible.
The fact is that China has been working with an experimental male birth control injection. Their drug is currently in clinical trials. The Chinese trial, is being conducted in nine other Chinese research centers, 1,045 healthy fertile males were injected monthly with 500 milligrams of a formulation of testosterone undecanoate (TU) in tea seed oil during the course of thirty months. The androgen works by dramatically reducing two regulatory brain chemicals, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinsing hormone (LU). These two hormones temporarily disrupt sperm production rendering the men infertile. The good new is that only 6.1 percent of men in the Chinese study, did not react to this treatment which is a failure rate similar to that of female birth control pills.
WHAT THE WEST IS DOING ABOUT MALE BIRTH CONTROL
John poignantly asks, why don't we have it in the West? Evidently John thought it better to listen to the Brazilian doctor rather than doing his own research. Bayer University and Harvard University have been diligently working on a male birth control pill that is ready for clinical testing this year. The pill works by acting upon a molecule JQ1. The JQ1 molecule inhibits a protein in the testes that is imperative to fertility. For more information: Read a Q and A with the Researcher
According to the researcher, JQ1 is known as a small molecule, meaning it effectively passes through the blood stream into testes. Once JQ1 is in the testies, it binds to BRDT (bromodomain testis specific protein). This protein is essential in sperm production. JQ1 works by blocking the region of BRDT responsible for chromatin remodeling, resulting in temporary reduction of sperm production and quality. When tested in mice, researchers found that mice started to reproduce healthy sperm when the were no longer exposed to JQ1. >>Link<< The cells forget how to make mature sperm and impare sperm mobility resulting in an impressive contraceptive effect.
JOHN THE OTHER IGNORES JQ1
 |
| August 16th AVFM Comment on JQ1 Article |
John's blog, Reproductive Slavery, was published Wednesday August 15th, 2012. What I find peculiar is that someone from the A Voice For Men Facebook page, left a comment on the same JQ1 article that I cite in this essay August 16th, 2012. With so much information online about male birth control research and development, much of that information I already linked in this blog, why would John and other AVFM authors, deliberately mislead his readers into thinking that the West does nothing to promote male birth control? Why does he promote these conspiracy theories that vast, covert feminist groups with far-reaching powers are trying to control men's sperm? JQ1 is tremendously important for boys and men. It seems very counter intuitive that any person claiming to care about the male sex would not enthusiastically promote JQ1 research.
THE REAL FUNCTION OF AVFM
The real function for A Voice For Men is the same function as Free Thought Blog forums. It is a place for people to sit down, bitch, complain, feed into each others anger, and then give each other a pat on the back. It is an angry circle-jerk. I mosied over to AVFM, and conducted a search for JQ1. Guess what I found? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a single writer for that website is sharing this information with their readers. (To back up this claim, see the image below.)
JQ1 is a break through for men. It is male birth control that will give men a tremendous amount of power over their right not to reproduce. After all, the right to not reproduce is the premise of paragraph one of John's blog.
It would be unconscionable that someone who cares so much about boys and men would not share such valuable information.Why? How could a person who claims to care so much about boys and men not write about JQ1 or try to raise money to fund the research?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO TRULY ADVOCATE?
What I did find is that John published an article, Are All Feminists Morans? What a charming play on words. Is it me, or does moran sound a bit like the word, moron? Surly he would not call all feminists morons, because that would be an ad hominem attack. They dish out personal attacks, yet seem to be very sensitive to any criticism thrown in their direction.
I have never made a secret of my dislike for feminists, and particularly The Free Thought Blog Feminists who drive me bonkers. Calling all feminists morons, if that is truly his implication, is very wrong. In the blog, he reiterates the stance that men have no reproductive rights. He mentions nothing about JQ1, instead only bitching about something some lady said that he did not like.
Complaining about pop culture actresses who make misandrist comments is not a productive way to advocate for boys and men. Whining about trivial things is not raising awareness. It is only making the person look like an angry, complainer actively looking to be offended. I fail to see how this is any different from angry feminists, sitting around bitching about how some guy did them wrong. It is an angry circle-jerk.
I respectfully ask my readers not to support A Voice For Men until they change their platform. This means, do not visit their website. Do not donate. Tell them that you prefer to support Men's Rights Organizations that do not spend their time complaining about things celebrities say, or things feminists say that they do not like. Tell them that if they want your support, then they need to focus on things that actually improve the lives of men - like JQ1.
I see plenty of links asking for donations to AVFM, but where are the donation links set up to help fund the male contraception research at Harvard? Why aren't they funneling money into the Harvard research? That being said, there is an epidemic of male homelessness and suicide. What are they doing about that? If they want money to advocate for boys and men, then the first thing they need to do is start advocating for boys and men.
FEMALE DECEPTION
Some women do deceive men into impregnating them or tricking them into believing they are the biological father. That's why I believe men should be more careful, protect themselves and never underestimate a woman's ability to manipulate. We must advocate for boys and men, but financing research for JQ1. ( At the end of this blog, I will show you how to donate directly to the Harvard JQ1 Research program.) Aside from always using a condom, JQ1 is a great way men can protect themselves.
When teenage boys or young men are sexually active, their parents can bring them in for an injection. If the drug is available in seventeen years, you better believe my boys will be at the doctors office. Regarding the few manipulating women who try to become pregnant, there is nothing we can do to stop them, but we can protect our boys if we invest our time, attention and money in the right places.
Here, in the above caption, we see that John once again asserts that men have no reproductive rights when clearly they do have reproductive rights. What they do not have the right to do, is force a woman to have an abortion. I know of a Frenchman who intentionally crashed into his ex-girlfriends car at a busy intersection, causing her to miscarry a baby he did not want. This is not the morally correct action to take. I do feel for men who are trapped. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It sucks and I am very sorry for it. Until men are willing to take more responsibility for what happens to their sperm, they will continue to end up in these situations. Once the child is born, the law is on the child's side, not the parents.
CONCLUSION
Men need homeless shelters. Men need suicide prevention. Men need more funding for JQ1. Men need help graduating from a four year University. A Voice For Men's platform is mostly about complaining and hanging up signs. They are not doers, they are talkers. Do you want to give your money to an organization that talks a lot, or do you want to give to an organization trying to do something good for men?
Be a Doer - not a Talker
The premise of John’s blog is that the right not to reproduce is a
right extended only to pregnant women and not to the fetus’s biological father.
The Law will not absolve a parent of their responsibility to support their
child. Here is the question. Do you want to be a doer or do you want to be a
complainer? Do you want to solve a problem or do you want to bitch about it
until the day you die?
If you would like to be a doer, and be part of the solution, what
you can do is click on the following link, and make a donation to support the
Harvard University clinical trials for JQ1. If you want to be a doer, and not a
complainer, contact Emily Lindberg at 617 582-8830 or send an to emilyt_lindberg@dfci.harvard.edu or Giving_Catalog@dfci.harvard.edu.
You may also contact Alice Tobin Zaff. Director of Gift Planning 617
632-3756, or send her an e-mail at alice_zaff@dfci.harvard.edu.
When you phone or e-mail them, let them know that you would like to make a
donation specifically to JQ1 research and/or clinical trials. Your donation is
tax deductible.
If you would like to be a complainer, and not a doer, then donate
money to A Voice For Men. On their website, you will enjoy many articles
complaining about any perceived misandrist comment made by a feminists or celebrities.
I would like to drive home the point that time and money are valuable.
If you are capable of donating, send your money to a place where you know they
are working for a good cause. Whether we are talking about a circle of angry
women, complaining about how they feel so objectified by unrealistic standards
of beauty, or a MRA organization whining about some trivial thing a celebrity
says that they do not like, I ask you to remember that bitching about trivial
crap is not raising awareness. It is only bitching about trivial crap. They are
not making the world better for anyone by feeding into each other’s anger.
-->
First off, thank you for acknowledging misandry and some serious issues that men face. As someone who's done this sort of advocacy work for more than 10 years it's more than I'm used to seeing; contempt, denial, dismissal, and marginalization are more normal.
ReplyDeleteThat said, a few of things:
1) I can find no article on AVfM that promotes gossypol or legitimizes this Brazlian doctor's claims, sans John The Other's single personal editorial piece which only implies it. Personally I've always been skeptical of the claims of this Brazilian doctor; one guy claiming this happened almost 40 years ago is not enough in my view. We host many arguments from many points of view; you should be taking issue with JTO here, not all of us.
2) We have done substantial real-world work promoting shelters for men fleeing abusive relationships (there are almost none), to expose corrupt public officials and to get innocent men freed from jail and to support political candidates who are friendly to male issues (as few as there are), and to directly try to help suicidal men. See the cases of Vladek Filler, Gordon Smith, and Joel Kirk for examples of this sort of work. The hours spent on this have been enormous, with little to no financial support.
3) The claim that we're just a bunch of men sitting around bitching about women who did us wrong was gratuitous. We do see some of that in the commentary, but it's usually from men--and women--who've undergone far worse than just being "done wrong." In many cases we're talking about destroyed lives. Many of them can tell you about that, and the real-world work they've done about it.
4) Advocacy work which goes to a specific purpose matters. Exposing hateful deologues (be they feminist or conservative traditionalists) who have actual government policy power is part of that. You are correct that some gender ideologues are nothing but complainers who don't matter; many others are in positions of high authority in government, and in our universities where generations of government policymakers come from. That isn't a conspiracy. By comparison, the men's movement has virtually no political power and almost no funding: not taxpayer money, not tuition money, and very little in the way of charitable donations.
5) The recent shenanigans in Toronto involved people practicing real world censorship and assault to those who were trying to make people aware of the problems boys and men face in higher education; the efforts to censor that involved vandalism and violence. Bringing attention to that is legitimate in my view.
I'll have up an interview with domestic violence advocate Erin Pizzey in the next day or two that you may want to read and/or listen to. The feminist movement has a lot of power that comes from the enormous amount of money those who lead it have received over the last 40 years. Documentation of that will be provided.
Objections aside, I commend you for supporting this birth control work. I'll let others argue whether a man's sperm becomes "a woman's property" once it enters her body. The fact is that you're correct that supporting research on JQ1 is worthy and worthwhile. Thank you for bringing it to our attention--bear in mind, we're ALL volunteers working with almost no resources, and we cannot know everything; we receive no tuition dollars, no tax dollars, nothing but a few donations. I invite you to write an article JQ1 that we can post on A Voice For Men, since it's work worth supporting.
By the way, is the term "attention whore" really that offensive? It's not even a sexist term. I wrote that title to be funny, as part of a funny show. You can listen to it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L48jspWRiHQ
Was there something offensive about that show, other than the fact that you don't agree with our naming people who get violent? I'm not sure you'd find that much there to disagree with. In fact I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. But maybe I'm wrong.
I am a woman, and a mother of sons. I support and donate to AVFM. I really hope you don't mind my saying, but it's time for men to get angry. It's time for men to start speaking out. Thank you for posting the information about male birth control. You talk about French men crashing cars to force abortions while not mentioning women who have impregnated themselves from punctured condoms, or using the condom later to impregnate themselves, turkey baster style...or even suing sperm donors or statutory rape victims for child support.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a nice world out there. We all need to read and respect ALL sides of the story, not just women's.
Thank you for listening.
You'll get ahead more without the hit piece. I'm on board right up until you start to call me (AVfM reader) a whiner and a complainer.
ReplyDeleteSupporting the Pill +1
Alienating your audience -2
Good Luck, you won't be getting any money out of me with this type of attack.
I do not want your money.
DeleteSupporting the Pill PLUS ONE
Being Myself, and telling it like it is PLUS THREE
"The heart of John's argument seems to be, if a man does not want a baby, and the woman does, does he have the same reproductive rights as the woman? Can he force a woman to have an abortion?"
ReplyDeleteI believe that reproductive "slavery" implies that men are obligated to raise or pay for unwanted children. I don't think men are asking for a lot, just the right to say "no" to an unwanted child, especially in cases where they had been raped or abused. It's not asking women to get abortions, although I believe some women would choose one as a side effect.
"John argues it is not fair that women have many types of contraception available to them, while men have only two forms of contraception."
ReplyDeleteI think the number of choices isn't even the main issue. When you think about men's reproductive choices qualitatively, you'll notice that one is permanent and isn't a realistic option until a man is older and is really done having kids for good. The other is highly conspicuous, requires proper use in the heat of passion, and it diminishes a man's sensation. And some men are also circumcised and are missing a majority of their nerve endings.
You can take a pill when you're sober in the morning and that will protect you against a life-changing lapse of judgement after a few beers. A condom also does not affect a woman's experience the way it affects a man's, because she still feels the friction on her skin while he doesn't. It's different.
Is Moran not the name of a feminist?
ReplyDeleteWas this blogger perhaps asking if all feminists are like her -as in resorting to the same tactics or following the same line of thought?
Would the play on words then be for satirical effect?
I'm just thinking out loud. I recognised the feminist's name, but haven't read his article about her.
i think your missing the point that women enjoy freedom of choice up to and including after the birth of a child.
ReplyDeletemost men dont want to "What they do not have the right to do, is force a woman to have an abortion."
but your missing the fact that thats not the only option for a woman who doesnt want a child in her life...
most men would be happy to financially "opt out" of being a parent to a child they hadn't agreed to become a father to,, this choice while still unavailable to them does NOT interfere with a womans choice of what to do with her body it only gives men more control over their OWN future...
you know like women ALREADY have?
I must acknowledge, that I agree with your point.
DeleteThe blog I wrote has a lot of content already. I did consider discussing a man's right to opt out of financial obligations to his child. I am in agreement with you.
I decided not to discuss it, because having been in many family Courts, written many motions, briefs, and memorandums, I can confidently say that Judges will always rule in the favor of the Child. The Courts will order child support whether or not the father or mother want to pay. It is unfair. I only touched on that unfairness in this blog. Unfortunately, the law will continue to rule in the best interest of children.
The best we have is to fund a male birth control, that will reduce the population and give men a lot more control over their lives.
I am sorry for not spending more time on this topic. I felt the blog was already too long.
Naomi
I enjoyed your article and integrity, its challenging and that's always good. I am a subscriber at AVFM I and many others do not enjoy the circle jerk but seemingly it is necessary. Unfortunately I expect it to get much worse before it gets better. It has become the method for affecting public policy and the loudest seems to win. I call it "take a number and stand in line" progressive socialism. (socialism without drama is just fairness and that's just boring)
DeleteI'm replying to your comment regarding "Judges will always rule in the favor of the Child." I have always felt the rulings were for the benefit of the state not the child. Do you think it would be viable to allow adolescents at age 14-16 to sue both parents for support and determine their own destination of residency? Do you think it would curb teenage homelessness?
Years back a young lad 17 lived with my son and I, both his parents had turned him out so to speak and any help requested was met with battles from both sides. I advised him to go to family court and sue for support but he refused and ended up quitting school and working. I think a few cases in the public consciousness would afford more options to teens rather than homelessness. I am very curious what your thoughts on this would be.
keith
Hi Keith,
DeleteThe boy could have sued for child support. If the parents were still married, they would have had to pay it. In those cases, the State may have been inclined to placing him in a group home, in which case he would not have gotten any money from his parents.
I think that family courts make the right decisions only eighty percent of the time. There is a huge financial incentive, and a fair amount of corruption. I participated in a documentary film being made right now called Lawless America. They are on both Facebook and Youtube. Thousands of people from across the country gave a three minute testimony about corruption, at all levels. If you have time, check it out.
With so much information online about male birth control research and development, much of that information I already linked in this blog, why would John and other AVFM authors, deliberately mislead his readers into thinking that the West does nothing to promote male birth control?
ReplyDeleteYawn.. So you searched for JQ1 and nothing came up? Good for you..
There were at least two articles on AVFM discussing upcoming technology.
Pill Part 1
Pill Part 2
YouTuber Barb also posted on this recently
Male Contraception
Why are you still posting comments here?
DeleteIt is evident that you actively look to be offended, and see what you want to see. That is obvious.
The fact is, if you dislike me so much, then you should not be visiting this blog.
ok cool.. I wont post any more. This is my last one.
DeleteRemember.. you replied to old comment of mine today.. something like 'Do you still think I have English Degree' LOL. I came by to see what exactly you have done.
Good
DeleteGood Bye
http://menareangrynow.wordpress.com/tag/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial/
ReplyDeleteHi Naomi, this is PaulineTriage from Youtube. Above is the link to a piece in another MRA journal that references Paul Elam's remarks on juries in rape cases. The piece itself now appears to have been removed from AVFM as all links to it lead to a "broken" avfm link. I'd like to think that taking it down means that Paul Elam is reflecting on the harshness of his position, but probably not.
I read that article, and Paul's response to it. He wrote
Delete"Many of the circumstances around rape trials, most certainly rape shield laws, foster a system that prevents jurors from examining relevant evidence in a trial, and they have no way of telling whether such evidence has been excluded."
What I find most interesting, is that rape shield laws only mean that the Defense cannot question her about her past sexual history or publish her name. That is it.
How on earth does Paul think that a woman's past sexual history is "relevant evidence in a trial". Who she slept with in the past has no baring on whether or not she was raped. It is used only to make her look like a slut. The conclusion being ' sluts cannot be raped because they probably agreed in the first place.'
Prostitutes in Hunts Point are raped all the time. Their occupation has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the alleged perpetrator.
The Jury cannot know her sexual history. They must rule according to the Law, the Legal Standards, and the Evidence. That is it. Whether she slept with one man, two, or a thousand is completely irrelevant.
Paul would be dismissed and replaced immediately.
Nothing has been removed from AVfM.
ReplyDeleteYou may find an extensive debate on the matter here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/jury-nullification-debate-part-1/http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/jury-nullification-debate-part-1/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/jury-nullification-debate-part-ii/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/jury-nullification-debate-conclusion/
What "rape shield laws" constitute varies from state to state by the way.
I do not agree with Paul's position but as someone who has personally worked to help get innocent men freed from jail (with some success, I note) I do not find it sufficient to merely dismiss his concern, although his position should automatically get him removed from a jury.
I have considered taking up the cudgels to debate him myself, although I find some of his points hard to refute, I think there are weaknesses there. There's a lot of work, and I don't find the arguments all to be lightly dismissed. Maybe this is easy for you; if so, you should be aware that the offer of an open debate is there. (Despite the endless claims to the contrary, we publish stuff on AVfM all the time from people who take views contrary to Paul's, or to others'.)
Here is a comprehensive list of Rape Shield Laws by State.
Deletehttp://www.arte-sana.com/articles/rape_shield_laws_us.pdf
This information may come helpful to you in your work. As you will read, the basic idea of rape shield is the same. "past sexual history, and name publication," There are some exceptions, those exceptions are what vary from State to State.
It is a difficult subject for me to address; my own experiences bias me, because I think female offenders usually get a (mostlY) free pass here. You can find my discussion of the matter, which we also promoted on AVfM, here on HuffPo:
ReplyDeletehttp://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/female-sex-offenders/50b3e38002a76052c60000c8
One of the reasons I have a hard time debating on this one way or the other has to do with personal issues. The phrase "trigger warning" bugs me because it's overused, but it's an issue that it's hard for me not to become emotional about.
Still, the open debate offer remains there for anyone who wants to, and I might. It's just gruelling.
Thanks for hosting this discussion.
I think you are right about that. Mary Kay Letourneau, incidentally taught at my former school district, was given only 7 years. That was AFTER she was released on a suspended sentence. She was caught with the boy again, and then the judge gave her seven years.
DeleteWomen tend to get hire sentences when it comes to failure to act, which mostly applies only to children. In New York, there was a case involving Nixmarie Brown. Her mother was given 31 years for failure to protect her 3 year old daughter, while the man who killed the girl got about 30 years. I might be wrong on these numbers, but I remember that mom got more time than her boyfriend.
You and your readers may also find this interesting, which also shows where a lot of us get frustrated, back to that double standard stuff.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-violence/
In case you prefer a link to another source besides AVfM, you can also find it here:
http://themoderatevoice.com/171044/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-domestic-violence/
Over at TMV there's at least one or two self-proclaimed feminists who loathe me so you'll probably see some very critical commentary there. But it's hard with these things, when you percieve a huge double standard that seems to you to go unaddressed, and people dismiss it as "conspiracy." Well, not in the way people think of "conspiracies" anyway...
Hi Naomi
ReplyDeleteThat was a great piece of work and very thought provoking. It is great to have intelligent discourse on this subject from outside the MRM.
I think you're being too harsh on AVFM but from your perspective I can see why it might seem that they are just whingers. Dean Esmay pretty much covers this in his comments above.
I would add a couple of comments for you to consider. The MRM is very small, just forming, unfunded and doesn't have a clear leadership or policy objectives. It's not unexpected that a lot of MRA's are unfocussed and lack positive direction, much like feminists in the 60's. Moderate and rational discussions like your blog here are fantastic and if shared would provide a focus and redirect a lot of energy more positively. However as a starter a forum like AVFM is needed.
Second comment is that one of the most frustrating issues for any MRA is the outright denial of misandry and prejudice against men. Whilst it may seem like a circle jerk to you to bring up personal stories it is, at the moment, necessary because personal stories are the only way available to MRAs to demonstrate their concerns with real evidence. Outright denial of the issue can only be confronted with real evidence and there is no funding available for impartial social research to consolidate the evidence and sanitize the rhetoric. Again its just like the first days of feminism.
I am saying these things in the hope you'll have some understanding the MRM needs time and space to grow and form its leadership.
Again I commend you on this blog. Excellent research, good focus and a great read.