Hey, that’s *our* trick!

Friday afternoon light reading, courtesy of the Dalrock Research Dept.

Mommyish has a post about Nick Loeb’s Op Ed piece at the NYT.  Loeb wants custody of the frozen embryos he and his ex fiancée created, and the ladies at Mommyish smell a rat. First up are Kathryn and Joanne;  they think this is a ploy by Loeb to get child support:

embryo_child_support

Valerie, Roberta, OkieMom, and Liawen have the same suspicion.  They think that Loeb is not only greedy, but is trying to use the family courts to punish his ex.  OkieMom accuses him of trying to pull off an “oops pregnancy”:

embryo_child_support3

Edit:  More.  Danielle thinks he is only doing it for the child support payday:

embryo_child_support4

koolchicken is outraged that a woman could have a child without her consent.  Sure this happens to men, but as she explains, that is different:

embryo_child_support5

This entry was posted in Child Custody, Child Support, Manosphere Humor, Solipsism, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Hey, that’s *our* trick!

  1. rugby11ljh says:

    Wow

  2. greginaurora says:

    Gosh, it’s almost like they’ve thought about this before!

  3. Minesweeper says:

    LOL – THIS IS SUPERB !!!!!

  4. Steve Evets says:

    “The law aside, I can’t imagine putting her in that position — to know that her babies are being raised without her or, feeling pressure to be involved in their lives even though she and their father have long since moved on.”

    Peak cognitive dissonance has been reached.

  5. Minesweeper says:

    The female mindset regarding children – displayed for all to see.

  6. greyghost says:

    Minesweeper
    Plus 1 more That is where their heads are at. People these days are so used to speaking in social media that they post up like they are at somebody’s home talking after dinner

  7. Steve Evets says:

    From that koolchicken comment:

    “I always felt that every time you had consensual sex with someone, you needed to also be consenting to raise a child with that person.”

    She unknowingly destroys the argument that it’s ok for women to sleep around, have ONSs etc. If having sex = pregnancy, then willingly going to bed with that guy you met less than 2 hours ago is an extremely reckless action, given that 2 hours is not enough time to accurately determine the suitability of said man to be the father of your child. He may appear as such, but that appearance is easy to mimic, and it takes a long time to really determine how congruent the image he presents is with reality.

  8. rugby11ljh says:

    @greyghost
    That should be applied to all manner of dealings with people.
    Would you say that in front of your mother?
    Good thing to keep in mind in molding a better version of you in the world.

  9. Random Angeleno says:

    smh … then my head explodes. just … wow
    cognitive dissonance does not get any better than that.

  10. l jess says:

    all the more reasons not to freeze embryos or sperm or eggs – it becomes a major mess if everything is not perfect – In this case it shows the mindset that women have to be protected – but not that any man or child has to be protected

  11. rugby11ljh says:

    @I Jess
    Their is a love what you just said
    “but not that any man or child has to be protected”

  12. ddswaterloo says:

    Very revealing. These accused motives are very much female motives. NOT male motives. And the ladies accusations reveal where their minds are.

    Not flattering ladies.

  13. The Dalrock research department strikes gold. Roberta, OkieMom, and Liawen simply cannot conceive motives outside female entitlement and provisioning as valid. It is hilarious to see their thoughts play out. Nice find.

  14. “It’s different for men”, the magic words of feminism. Abracadabra!

  15. John Nesteutes says:

    It’s telling that these women who supposedly “care about kids” don’t care at all about two children stuck living in a freezer.

  16. feeriker says:

    Would you say that in front of your mother?

    They probably learned that kind of talk from their mothers.

  17. rugby11ljh says:

    @freeriker
    I stand corrected.

  18. MarcusD says:

    I don’t know where to start with that…

  19. Looking Glass says:

    I guess I can appreciate the honesty. Though the thought “The End can’t come soon enough” also comes to mind.

  20. SirThermite says:

    Great catch, Dalrock. It’s unique and percpetive observations like this one which keep me coming back to this site. And yes, you really can’t make this stuff up.

  21. Siobhan says:

    I am just so, so sorry for the babies😦 I pray someday they are allowed to grow up. I cannot fathom the mother denying them life. It’s completely beyond me.

  22. Wow! Okay, that was a great find! They seem to grasp just how damaging the system is but only to them of course..

    Still, rich man wants child, must be because he needs money from poor woman..

  23. Casey says:

    Cognitive dissonance, thy name is feminism.

    Women are constantly contradicting themselves, and re-writing the rules to suit them, AND to be applied differently when the male/female roles are reversed.

    Anyone who caught Roosh V’s takedown this week on Dr. Oz will not be surprised by these dislocations.

    Fat, unhealthy, MISERABLE women decreeing that no one should use shame as a tool to modify someone else’s behaviour. Simultaneously, Oz, the audience, and the panel used every tool in the shame master’s toolkit to take Roosh down.

    The mastery in this dislocation was the following segment in the show where they brought out a washed-up 50-something actress to go on & on about all the weight she had lost and how great she felt.

    Ta-da!!!!!!

  24. The cognitive dissonance is from our side Casey. You see, shame is fine, as long as it’s used against men and not women. That’s the entire criteria used. It’s the same with ‘don’t judge me’. They judge men all the time, our looks, our actions, our very being is judged and yet you’re not allowed to make your own judgments when it’s about them.

    Dr Oz is a miserably fraud, just like Dr Phil. Why people take these shysters at face value is beyond me. They are in the business for one reason only, to spread the agenda of female superiority. To spread the worship of the vajayjay.

  25. HawkandRock says:

    ““The law aside, I can’t imagine putting her in that position — to know that her babies are being raised without her or, feeling pressure to be involved in their lives even though she and their father have long since moved on.”

    Peak cognitive dissonance has been reached.”

    Platinum!

    Such potential in this one. Thank you, Dalrock!

  26. JDG says:

    If having sex = pregnancy, then willingly going to bed with that guy you met less than 2 hours ago is an extremely reckless action, given that 2 hours is not enough time to accurately determine the suitability of said man to be the father of your child.

    It doesn’t matter. It’s still HIS fault, especially if he was hawt. After all, she just following her heart.

    /sarc

  27. Seth says:

    “It’s different with a man.”

    Also, men and women are equal. And the same.

  28. Lucius Petillius Clarus says:

    Great find.
    It’s a clear distillation of the female rationalization hamster at work. A complete inability to access logic. Anything that benefits women, good. Anything that benefits men, bad.

    Oh, equality you say? Only the parts that benefit women. Because that strong independent woman will still get upset if you don’t pull over and change her flat tire for her.

  29. The Question says:

    The rationalization hamsters are strong in these ones.

  30. Yes, it’s different when it comes to guys. Just ask Sharon Osbourne and Julie Chen.

    Thank God I’m asexual.

  31. rover77 says:

    their hypocrisy is priceless..child support..punishment and child without consent?…heaven forbid

  32. Jeremy says:

    Yes yes, how dare a man claim right of determining liability for new life for the purposes of financial gain. Women *never* do that.

  33. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Early May Edition | Patriactionary

  34. They Call Me Tom says:

    This sort of lines up with this work week… We have more employees than parking spaces, and the satellite parking has gone from being at an adjacent parking lot to a parking a lot a quarter mile from the office. The women don’t need to walk a quarter mile to work each day, (because they’re too feeble and might be endangered to and from the cars at night), so the men have to make that walk back and forth each day (and at lunch, because the lunch room is often unavailable because the women need it for their various socials). What compensation is there for this? The women had a company sponsored ‘women’s lunch’ this week… because you know, they have it so hard at the office. There hasn’t been a ‘men’s’ anything the whole time I’ve been there… and the company isn’t run by women… maybe the men who do run it are eunuchs though.

  35. Spike says:

    I have often wondered about why women do what they do, why their reasoning is so different to men’s and their various motives.
    When I tweaked to Red Pill thought, I figured out that women make decisions solely through the lens of their own selfishness / solipsism. Suddenly everything makes sense.
    When it comes to this incident, the possibility of the shoe being on the other foot causes feminists apoplexy.
    Get used to it ladies. I can’t wait for selfish lesbians who married and had kids find out that parenthood isn’t like having a buying a pet together. They will clog the Family Court with steaming piles of toxic shit and will hopefully make it unworkable.
    As for Ms Vergara, I watched 3 episodes of her show. I found it an abomination where all of the heterosexual men are selfish oafs, the gay guys and the women are the only clued in people and the kids are the moral centres for the dads. Another disgraceful effort by the satanic entertainment industry.

  36. Driver says:

    You can’t make this shit it. It shows just how selfish women truly are at heart. They only care about being “set up” down the road (having to pay child support). Actually having the kid in their lives or a connection (relationship) with the kid is a very distant second.

    Bottom line: they don’t want to be taken for fools and don’t want to pay child support. I thought that we were all equal (right, ladies?).

  37. sn0rkmaiden says:

    I’d be interested to hear people’s opinions on this similar case from a few years ago:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/apr/11/health.medicineandhealth1

    In this instance it was a woman who had been rendered infertile by cancer treatment, and created embryos with her then fiance so that they could have children once treatment was over. But he later ended the relationship and petitioned to have the embryos destroyed. As these were the only children she could ever have she fought the decision right to the European Court of Human Rights, but lost.

    Do you think her ex-fiance was wrong?

  38. Casey says:

    @ They Call Me Tom

    I had this very situation at my employer’s place of business several years ago (before we moved offices). We also had more employees than parking places.

    Our office building was in a sketchy area of town, and the overflow parking was 2 blocks away (short blocks at that).

    The brass asked the male workers (myself included) if they would give up their on-site parking spots in favour of our female co-workers; as it was a ‘safety issue’. The pondered question ought to be ‘Shouldn’t ALL employees be entitled to the same level of workplace safety?’

    A majority of the men said ‘No’ (again, myself included). Our V.P. overruled everyone, and the men had to commence their walk to offsite parking.

    Again, this was a meek attempt at ‘white knighting’ to get the men to volunteer. When volunteering didn’t get the desired result, the men were simply ‘volunTOLD’.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is feminism.

  39. Kyo says:

    Casey, it’s too bad they didn’t offer a financial incentive for people to park in the inferior lot, or, better yet, not to drive to work at all. I myself cannot drive and have always wondered why nobody seems to have a problem with workplaces offering a benefit (free parking) to only one segment of the population (people who can drive). Try that with any gender, ethnicity, religion, or race, and you’d have a lawsuit on your hands.

  40. Morgan says:

    koolchicken:

    “I always felt that every time you had consensual sex with someone, you needed to also be consenting to raise a child with that person.”

    Oh, except if you’re a woman and have the sole right to terminate the accidental pregnancy. Women do not consent to having a child with everyone they have sex with, but of course men can be forced into parenthood just as easily as they can be dismissed from it.

  41. Gary Crant says:

    Outstanding catch. If you’d ever tried to broach the subject of women “pulling the goalie” to extract commitment from men in the presence of women they’ll pull out all of the stops to shame any man who takes the position that it is common or even possible. One of my brothers had the goalie pulled on him by his longtime girlfriend after college graduation when he wanted to see other women, two of my best law school buddies experienced similar. But the pinnacle (and maybe one of the biggest bricks in building my red pill awareness) was nonchalantly passed on to me by my own mother, relating the following story. One of my mother’s best friends and the mother of a guy I went to high school with and played sports with was seated with her son’s girlfriend at her son’s medical school graduation. The mother adored the girlfriend, becoming closer than the couple itself – a relationship that was lukewarm at best from his point of reference. My mother overheard (or perhaps was permitted to overhear) the mother tell the girlfriend that she would “support” her if a mistake “were to happen.” In essence, we had women conspiring to deprive a man of choice in deciding whether and with whom to become a father – and one of the women was the man’s own mother. Whether an attempt was made is unknown, and all that I do know is that there was never a live birth from that union. The expectation in all of these cases, of course, is that the women in the man’s life together with white knighting men will coerce the man to “do the right thing” and “not abandon his duties” by committing to the mother and nascent child (presumably without even confirming paternity) but only in the event that the woman wants the child and the man. If not, it is of course “her body, her choice.”

    Of course that segues neatly into the rationalization hamsters spinning in the original source material commenting on the subject frozen embryos. Deprived of their absolutist abortion feint about their “bodily integrity,” they’re left with ad hoc rationalizations to explain why fertilized embryos entirely outside of Ms. Vergara are nevertheless solely her property to use or destroy depending upon her caprice. The shaming of Ms. Vergara’s ex is in overdrive, as is the projection of the motives of the female imperative on the gent. The single unstated principle is that reproduction is reserved to women, and that men will be included only on their sayso and on their terms – all of which may be revoked at any convenient time prior to birth.

  42. francischalk says:

    Most depressingly, these women very accurately represent the views of an overwhelming supermajority of the female population.

  43. Scott says:

    I can’t wait for selfish lesbians who married and had kids find out that parenthood isn’t like having a buying a pet together. They will clog the Family Court with steaming piles of toxic shit and will hopefully make it unworkable.

    This is an interesting proposition. Wouldn’t it be, based on what we have seen here that the clogging will be because both women see the child(ren) as a sort of “hot potato” that neither one wants to keep, but both want child support for?

    Imagine both women in a lesbian relationship trying to force the sperm donor to take the kid while simultaneously arguing in court against child support.

  44. Scott says:

    To make more sense, that should read “OR imagine…”

  45. Looking Glass says:

    @Scott:

    My understanding is that it’s already a mess. The only reason it won’t rise to a bigger mess? The actual number of exclusive Lesbians is less than 1.5% of the Female population (no one comments on the fact there’s far more Bisexuals, male & female, than there are “strictly homosexual” people), and those with the means to go the direct sperm donor route is going to be maybe .25% of the entire Female population. Simply put, there will be more divorces filed this year than there is likely Lesbian couples capable of causing those issues in the courts.

  46. Gary Crant says:

    “This is an interesting proposition. Wouldn’t it be, based on what we have seen here that the clogging will be because both women see the child(ren) as a sort of “hot potato” that neither one wants to keep, but both want child support for?”
    __________________________________________

    I’d imagine it would be a pissin’ contest between the biological mother and the Lesbian pretend mother about whether the latter is really a mother of the child at all. It would seem in women’s nature (even Lesbians) to turn on a dime as regards things said while the relationship was good and hurt the former lover by disclaiming the latter’s parenthood – viz, “you’re not [the kid’s] real parent.”

    In many states it was common law that a child born in a marriage is presumptively the husband’s. I wonder how or if the homosexual “marriage” farce is going to parody itself further as they demand that children born of one woman are those of the same sex spouse? Of course, with two males this is a bit more difficult due to the necessary presence of a woman to incubate the child, who has paramount rights to any child born of her body regardless of any agreement she may have made prior.

  47. mikediver5 says:

    Gary Crant says:
    May 4, 2015 at 7:38 pm
    “The single unstated principle is that reproduction is reserved to women, and that men will be included only on their sayso and on their terms – all of which may be revoked at any convenient time prior to birth.”

    This is borne out with the vicious repression of any non-hormonal male birth control pill. When there was an international symposium on one such pill (cotton seed derivative that was not perfect because it was not 100% reversible) NOW came in with all guns blazing to shame them for even discussing such a thing. They were able to pretty much shut down the symposium by out shouting everyone else there to have an open discussion. The public reason stated for their opposition was that we shouldn’t have male BC because women can’t trust men to not trick them into pregnancy; projection much. One of the top NOW representatives did admit in private (to a reporter, so any assumption of privacy was flawed) that they hadn’t worked all these years to get women 100% control of reproduction just to give it away.

    When I discussed the Gandarusa pill, now being developed in Indonesia and to be marketed as a dietary supplement rather than a pharmaceutical, with my younger female relatives, they were all for it. There only initial objection was that it might lower their husband’s libido. When told that it was 100% non-hormonal and works by suppressing one protein on the surface of the sperm which would make it so the sperm could not penetrate the ovum, they were 100% in favor. They were well aware of the long term effects of female hormonal BC, and would be happy to shift the pill taking onto their husbands. This is yet further proof that the feminist leadership is totally out of touch with the common woman’s life and problems.

  48. craig says:

    Gary Crant says: “In many states it was common law that a child born in a marriage is presumptively the husband’s. I wonder how or if the homosexual “marriage” farce is going to parody itself further as they demand that children born of one woman are those of the same sex spouse? Of course, with two males this is a bit more difficult due to the necessary presence of a woman to incubate the child, who has paramount rights to any child born of her body regardless of any agreement she may have made prior.”

    Same-sex ‘marriage’ will inevitably eradicate biological fact from the law. Once the judges have decreed same-sex ‘marriage’ must be recognized as equivalent to real marriage, the inexorable logic of common law reasoning will, over time, sever any and every connection between biological parentage and parental rights, such that all children are all legally wards of the State unless and until the State deputizes some adult to raise them. Never mind polygamy, incest, and pederasty; this is the real slippery slope: children will no longer belong to their parents.

    Why is this slippery slope inevitable? Because the law cannot uphold claims by a same-sex couple to parental rights over a particular child, superseding the parental rights and obligations of the child’s other biological parent(s), until it first declares that biological parentage is not normative for legal purposes. And unless the law does this, it cannot not discriminate against same-sex couples, discrimination which it will have already declared impermissible.

    Brave New World is a prophecy.

  49. Scott says:

    Same-sex ‘marriage’ will inevitably eradicate biological fact from the law. Once the judges have decreed same-sex ‘marriage’ must be recognized as equivalent to real marriage, the inexorable logic of common law reasoning will, over time, sever any and every connection between biological parentage and parental rights, such that all children are all legally wards of the State unless and until the State deputizes some adult to raise them. Never mind polygamy, incest, and pederasty; this is the real slippery slope: children will no longer belong to their parents.

    Why is this slippery slope inevitable? Because the law cannot uphold claims by a same-sex couple to parental rights over a particular child, superseding the parental rights and obligations of the child’s other biological parent(s), until it first declares that biological parentage is not normative for legal purposes. And unless the law does this, it cannot not discriminate against same-sex couples, discrimination which it will have already declared impermissible.

    Brave New World is a prophecy.

    Every time I try to argue with, well pretty much anyone now (it matters not if they call themselves, “conservative,” “liberal,” or whatever) and the extrapolation of 2nd and 3rd order effects comes up, I am told I am paranoid.

    And every time, the thing they said would never happen, happens.

    Isn’t trying to look out into the future this way a part of good policy making? Was it ever?

  50. John Nesteutes says:

    @craig

    This already happened in the case of Miller v. Jenkins.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Jenkins

  51. mrb4852 says:

    I think a great social experiment would be to take the mommyish article and all the comments republish them but with the sexes of everyone reversed.

  52. Daniel says:

    Funny, the whole, ‘if he sleeps with her he is making the decision to raise a child…’ or that effect. YET! Women have the option to surgically and legally “abort” that responsibility out of respect for their “rights???” This is the MOST interesting piece of “women logic” ever assembled, yet, assembled with NO help from us, men. (head in hands…) It’s really depressing, really, to know how far we would have to come to get anywhere near a livable situation with these monsters. 2 years since I’ve spoken to my babies, but apparently I just haven’t begged, pleaded, emailed, texted, skyped in a way that appeals to her independent nature as a single mother, or some B.S. Thank you so much for this MUCH needed therapy.

  53. Jim says:

    @Casey “Women are constantly contradicting themselves, and re-writing the rules to suit them, AND to be applied differently when the male/female roles are reversed.”

    LOL. Well, what do you expect? They’re female. No logic. No reason. No thinking. Just pure narcissism, spitefulness, and selfishness. Guys, this creature has been given complete, totalitarian power over you, especially if you’re married. Think about that.

  54. Pingback: Someone should have warned them. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s