Tuesday, April 6, 2010

My Body Her Choice......Her Body Her Choice.....A Child's Body Her Choice

Female or feminist political dichotomy:

I think it would be wise to take a closer look at some of the central tenets involved in the battle of the sexes. I read a comment at The-Spearhead.com the other day which got me thinking. I'd like to borrow where the author left off and expound upon the inseparability of the general female ethos and feminism itself.

First and foremost I've come to the conclusion that all women are feminists.
What differs is the minute nuances in the general philosophy of liberal women (feminists) and conservative women (feminists).

Both in fact demand chivalry, but in different ways. Left women or left feminists want socialist chivalry, in which men and government in aggregate support or defer to women, ( take the "women first" laws in college admissions and business hiring or diversion of the Stimulus Package to women for instance). Liberal women don't want marriage or family to be necessary for women whereas “conservative” women favor enfranchising the individual man (i.e. husband) bearing the burden. The conservative woman wants to garner the fruits of an individual man's labor and liberal feminists want to garner the fruits of mens and societies communal labor.

In the current situation, we have a mix of both, but there is still a fight between these women over men's resources, as some of the working married man’s money and indeed women's own money goes to support single mother feminist types through the tax base, but perhaps not as much as left feminists would like.

The conservative feminists are for less socialized support but empowerment to transfer men's money to women directly under the theory that men over all produce more and have more incentive to produce under this "male employability" as part of the family model. However, both are agreed that the fruits of male labor produced by his body should be transferable to women outside of marriage after divorce and both are in agreement that females should be given primary ownership of children.

Neither left women nor conservative women favor easing men’s burdens, at least in regard to the private sphere but there is a fundamental philosophical difference concerning how best to extract male and societal resources in general to support women and "their" children. For men, neither system is favorable as both lead to male disenfranchisement and loss of bodily sovereignty, furthermore we will simply be and indeed are currently paying more to support women either way, both in the private sphere and public sphere in the general increase in "women first" policies and socialized support for women and "their" children.

So to me the illusion of female independence from dependency is simple, through manipulation of divorce law and social policy women are no more independent than they ever were. What has changed is the ways or "choices" afforded them as to how to extract this support, consequently and unfortunately at this point it is by both methods, both private transferability of male labor outside the bounds of marriage and public transferability of aggregate societal male labor and at the collective male expense.

In terms of male agency or shall I say lack thereof in the family as is current, the two female strategies work together in concert for male expendability by provider "resource transferability" or what I like to call an "isolated resource producing male" and of course the accompanied surrendering of fatherhood. This much is agreed upon by women and both see this as "liberation" and "independence" for women. What is not agreed however is how to best harvest male production output while at the same time maintaining female "freedom of choice" and autonomy, A fluid support structure for matriarchal (female and child centered social structure) polyandry or polyamory if you will.

One could actually surmise that women are infact married to the State, this is their real husband. This "Government Husbandry" is essential to maintaining the male expendability and "forced labor resource transferability" paradigm. It is essential to maintaining female "choices".

A woman can have as many husbands and families as the natural order of sexual selection by males will allow. She is given full control, agency and return on investment for her production value and the fruits of her bodily labor (her inherent value in mate selection terms). In fact the system is designed so that a female not only retains "ownership" of children but all of these offspring from different males are all supported by "isolated resource producing males" and by what is increasingly so "government husbandry".

Where as men can only have as many families or wives or offspring as they can financially afford because sovereignty over his body and the fruits of labor produced by it are transferable to women.

The key for women is to maintain as much and more control over sex, reproduction and most importantly conception but more importantly the property rights she has managed to associate with her bodily labor and the fruits bared by her labor.

The dichotomy goes to illustrate inherent, internal and soveriegn female production value as opposed to male production value which is is heavily weighted in "external utility", which is variable, external and thus exploitable and transferable.

The goals of both men and women are to maintain control over our own bodies and the fruits of our labor. THIS IS THE KEY POINT OF BATTLE.

The goal of women is to have control over both her own body, the body of a child prior to, during and after conception and the body of men by dominating and controlling in entirety female productive value and through doing so establish control over the productive value of men.

This is why abortion rights are the keystone to feminist rule. It is not about a woman's body or a woman's health, it is in fact about control of property. From the seemingly innocuous saying "my body my choice" comes "my baby my choice" which yields her the right of "a man's body my choice"

The idea is bodily sovereignty, property and ownership

The primary goal of feminism and the struggle for so called "equality" extends from this central issue i.e. control over property.

In other words feminism is about female control of:

-her body which leads to the end goal of control over
-the body of the child (both during and after conception) both in marriage and divorce
-and the body of a man through the fruits of his labor both in marriage and after divorce. If she can gain and maintain control over the first two she does in fact have full control over the bodily sovereignty of ALL HUMAN LIFE.

It is precisely the male value in external utility that women are able to exploit by law to support themselves and "their" children both in private family law policy and publicly through social policy to "empower" and "liberate" women, to give them "independence". It is in fact the lack of control men have over their own bodies that leads to male oppression. It is in fact the lack of control men have over their own bodies that leads to male expendability i.e. the end goal of female liberation and independence.

We ARE IN FACT the only sex which is required to yield our body over to the service of the other sex both in our private lives and publicly. We are the only sex who's bodily sovereignty is transferable to the other outside of marriage after divorce.

Men's bodies are for the service of women and country. Men have no bodily sovereignty in our private lives or public. In both realms the male body is expendable and the fruits of its labor transferable, it is fully put to use and socialized. You, a man can not gain so much as a drivers license if you have not registered your body to be drafted to military service. You, a man can not get legally married unless you agree to the marriage registration which entails the drafting of use for your body and the fruits of its labor by women outside of marriage. The goal is to create female "choices" facilitated by male liabilities.

However I must add that no matter how necessary our war with women has become, this war is deeply harmful. I feel viscerally that this is an unnatural fight. Under the natural order of things we are supposed to be mutually dependent on the other. I believe we are actually supposed to be mutually bonded, not in diametric opposition for control over our bodies and the body of the other sex and the fruits of its labor but in fact to give and yield to the other in entirety. We are in fact supposed to need each other. This however, is not the case by law nor is it the disposition of women to have such equality as many men have figured out. The personal has become the political and so we as men must fight women who are now our competition politically, socially and economically.

We to must fight for our true independence from women's dependency, not as they have fought for independence from dependency on men i.e. (through exploitation, ownership and transferability of male bodily sovereignty and male agency.) The only other suggestion I can think of is to enact shared custody of children, thereby eliminating child support and eliminate alimony as women are supposed to be working to support themselves and their families. The "choice" of women to "work or stay home" should no longer be something men pay for as a future capitalized liability of alimony and furthermore through such liability loss of the right to an active and meaningful role in the lives of our children. Women must have responsibilities that are not by law made to be liabilities to men.

To me it is obvious that the central tenet of war between the sexes entails bodily sovereignty and ownership of ones own body but most importantly the body of others, of which, at this point anyway women have complete rule, possession and authority over the bodily sovereignty of us all.

This dichotomy forms the basis for the paradigm in which women claim to be "sex objects". It is this same dichotomy that makes men "resource objects" "success objects" "external utility objects" But I ask you, who has more control over the bodily sovereignty of the other? Who has control over such by law?

I ask you all to contemplate for a moment who has more control, ownership, rights, individual sovereignty and liberty over their bodies and the fruit bared by its labors???

Which sex has more control, ownership, rights, sovereignty and liberty over the body of the other and that of children as well?

Answer these basic questions for yourself and I think we will be well on our way to understanding the rights of men and women as we relate to what is supposed to be but IS NO LONGER (yet what I believe should be) an ENTIRELY CONSUMMATE RECIPROCAL MARRIED BOND,A FAMILY.


Anonymous said...

We can end this crap by just eliminating feminist women from childbirth. IVF is the key to men becoming free. We can use IVF/surrogates to have our own children without a "wife" or "mother" to enslave us. It will be much cheaper for middle/higher income men to hire domestic help rather than get married. This will end the worst abuses of the current system.

Dude said...

This is an excellent post. I haven't seen/heard the formulation about conservative vs. liberal women wanting chivalry, but with one wanting it socialized and the other individualized. That's a good point you're bringing to the table and makes sense when you look at it. The bottom line is that women want to control men's bodies . . . maybe not sexually, but certainly in terms of economic support, which requires work. Considering chilimony payments some men are enslaved by the system (go to work and pay up or go to jail). Unfortunately, situations like this radicalize me and make me want to use women however I can (with their consent of course). That means rarely if ever paying for drinks/dates, and banging as many as I can with the lost cost per notch I can get.

Aimee said...

Have fun with all your IVF babies! Trust me I'm delighted that I will never have your child.

Anonymous said...

i came up with a great strategy in dealing with women when it comes to these issues. I figured out if i just don't bother with women and just go about my business none of this nonsense can touch me.

I turned down a decent looking woman one time and she had no comeback, she was defenseless its not like she can force me to screw her im a guy.

what do you think would happen if the majority of men followed suite with this strategy?

Anonymous said...

"what do you think would happen if the majority of men followed suite with this strategy?"

You would all be gay.

Bwec said...

"You would all be gay."

Threatening me or men with your vagina and genetic nihilism has no effect upon me. Your threats are expected and are acts of desperation. A last ditch approach in attempt to harm men.

Strap on your metaphorical chastity belt because a man dared to expectorate upon the alter of female privilege and the resulting oppression of men if you must. I enjoy the spectacle of your infantile hysteria for having the truth shoved into your feminist face.

The wheels are in motion for male independence and there is nothing you can do to stop us or myself. You have the right to your feelings of helplessness in the face of male liberation. In your lacking intellectual acuity it is only natural for you to throw a tantrum. You should know that I do not care.

Bwec said...

Lol, I forgot to mention, access to freely available vagina now a days is the last thing men are concerned about. Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free. You and your gender made your bed and now you will have to sleep in it....alone if you do not accept that men are making moves to be independent as well.

Mutual independence is mutual dis-need. Men will complete the other half of female independence whether you like it or not. It is already happening : )

Anonymous said...

I would just like to say to the anonymous poster above that you can still be heterosexual and not want to have anything to do with women. Avoiding women does not make you automatically gravitate towards men. You can remain happily in the middle, not wishing to engage sexually with either sex.