Paul Elam Against Abortion: Just Tell Women To ‘Fuck Off’

 Paul had a show yesterday. What’s a bit off to me is that Warren Farrell, who is usually present, isn’t there.


10 thoughts on “Paul Elam Against Abortion: Just Tell Women To ‘Fuck Off’

  1. Ah.Didn’t realize you edited it down to the essence.

    Elam is saying that a father-to-be should be as able to terminate any obligation to support his child once born, without input from the mother, in the same way that a woman has the right to terminate an early pregnancy, without input from the father. The argument is an equal rights one.

    A few speculations

    1. Do women everywhere now have absolute discretion to terminate a pregnancy, a “fuck you” to the fetus (to the pregnant woman deciding on abortion) but a son or daughter to the father?

    No, in less that one-third of countries. From Wikipedia: “Performing abortion only on the basis of a woman’s request is allowed in 29% of all countries, including in North America and in most European countries.”

    So, Elam’s proposal that any man anywhere can say “fuck you” to his child, would require 71% of countries to massively open up discretionary abortion to women in their countries, making it truly universal. Might be a fair trade.

    2. What would be equivalent restrictions on men terminating their fatherhood?

    Viewing film of the fetus (or multiple fetuses)? Forced reading of a statement about negative effects on the psyche of a man who dumps a child? A forced EKG to make sure he is competent to make the decision? Waiting periods? Strict time limits? A long trip to a clinic and the trauma of exposure to protesters and fear the clinic will be bombed while he’s in it? This report is on U.S. abortion restrictions:

    3. Do women everywhere now have the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy without input from the father?

    In the 29% of countries that give her discretion to abort, this is pretty much true, within the limits and restrictions like waiting periods, cutoffs, and forced ultrasounds, so far as I can tell.

    4. If men can terminate their obligation to support a son or daughter, what will be the impacts socially and economically on the child and the State, putting aside the mother’s rights for the moment?

    Since husbands, significant others, and casual partners will all have the same rights, I think it would have quite an impact on families living together such as married people with children. The wife decides to have the baby – the husband says no and opts out. I’d say that would finish the marriage.I would assume women would be much more likely to turn to sperm banks. In all I think it would hasten the end of marriage and nuclear family, allowing other more egalitarian forms of family to arise. That would be a plus. An added bonus: patriarchal religion would take quite a hit.

    5. If a man can terminate his obligation to help support his child, does this terminate all his rights as a father, for example the rights of visitation, of custody, of having a say in the child’s education and medical needs, to have any contact with his child throughout life, to have any contact with his grandchildren, for the man’s parents to have any contact with their grandchild, to have any inheritance rights in the case of the child’s death intestate, and on and on?

    Obviously, since the woman’s right to abortion ends all this and we are going to have equal rights. men who change their minds and want to get to know their sons in 20 years? Uh uh. Meantime the woman who struggled through will have her family and grandchildren around her in old age, Allah willing.

    On the whole, one way to look at this proposal is to consider that allowing men to opt out of fatherhood would weaken or kill the nuclear patriarchal family. I can see why if women had complete discretion to have abortions worldwide (as would be necessary for equal application of the notion that men globally would have such discretion), this would be fantastic for women. Women would have fewer children, I’d imagine, so that would be good for our crowded earth, and women would abandon the patriarchal structural notion that they could rely on a spouse or other male support from child to child, which would be a negative for the patriarchy. Not to mention women would require complete parity in the workforce, with any discrimination in favor of them because they will become the family providers in many or most cases. The men who opt-out will be free to go their own way without social responsibility or roots, the sexes will separate, and male supremacy will disappear.

  2. To finish up on my first comment, I know I’m ignoring a lot of important considerations, ethical and otherwise, like how abortion and abdication of parental responsibility aren’t and never can be equivalent. But it does seem to me that if the goal was for women and their children to live independently of men, this is the way to do it.

    Flipping the equality coin, if you give up the obligations of fathers, you give up the rights. With full control over their reproduction and no male control of such children and no social stigma for single mothers (as the men would be taking the action to opt out and it would be voluntary), women would have to work harder but the freedom would be well worth it. Giving up male rights to controlling children born after an opt-out would be a revolution and not a good result for male supremacy.

    A likely 2 tier system, affecting children of opt-outers (O-Os?) versus children of fathers, would add to the revolutionary social impact.

    Since opting out would be a non-waivable civil right, not subject to contractual waiver, that is, no couple could do a prenup agreeing that the husband gave up this right, serious uncertainty would be built into every marriage.

    Lesbian couples I think would be unaffected, but male gay couples who have babies would be a special case involving 2 fathers, Could both opt out?

    But wait!

    Surely Elam isn’t actually suggesting that men have opt-out rights PLUS keep any other fatherhood rights once the child is born?

    Because that would be clearly unethical and inequitable. No one would take THAT seriously.

    Or – can it be that this supposedly serious proposal isn’t sincere at all? Can it be a stupid bluff for the purpose of expressing the same old message of misogyny?

    Why yes, it could be and is.

    It can be and is, that Elam knows very well that opting out would be a disaster for men. But he needs to constantly reassure his audience and himself that women are so weak and frightened, they would entertain abandoning abortion rights rather than entertain his proposal. Because we’re afraid to raise our children without male support. Because we’re gold-diggin’ hos who would never work hard at anything and don’t give a shit about supporting our children. That if men got serious about opting out women would come begging. That we shouldn’t have abortion rights. That we should shut up and disappear back down the family holes or men won’t slip us a twenty now and then for baby’s new shoes.

    It’s the same old putrid message. It’s never really about helping men. It’s about playing games and expressing contempt for women. The lesson: never, but never, take this person seriously.

    • I think under Elam’s proposition here’s how I’d frame it, worldwide on demand abortion, even 3rd tri for emergencies. Men can abandon their children and then never have contact with them again, as you say. No walking in on the kid when he’s 20 and fucking him up.

      The only problem I see is men who want to parent for a few years and then leave the kid high and dry at 5. I suppose this is why you have to tax men more so when they run off and leave their kid at least they’ll be paying for the child. Oh and the child support system needs a massive overhaul. Men like to hoard cash and not care for their kids. We’d have to take care of that greedy selfishness in men.

      The only way I see that ending is forcing a male tax. If you want to be an irresponsible selfish deadbeat then the State will force you to contribute. I also think controlling their movement is essential too since they’ll be trying to impregnaate women. This is why smaller counties are important. I think if a man wants to enter a new county for any reason he should pay a tax for that too. Every time he comes and goes he pays.

      For this freedom to up and leave men are taxed much more than women. Also, the traditional jobs that women hold that are ‘ghetto jobs’ become high paying and male jobs become low paying. Nurses, school teachers, counselors, etc. all become 6 figure jobs dominated by women. You flip the wealth over to women.

      Since men, in Elam’s world, simply just want to be sperm then they should have minimal political power. Councils that are broken up by smaller counties will be run by women and have more jurisdictional power. Men will be put at say 10% of government. No governing body has more than 10% men. We must eliminate hoarding of wealth too. That’s a MUST.

      All Universities will charge the same minimum fee and there won’t be ‘Ivy League’ distinctions. I think quality of education is a MUST in this new society but you gotta break the hierarchy of patriarchy in edu.

      Just some thoughts.

      If all men want to be is a walking sperm cell I say we let them. we strip them of power. Who wants to give a walking sperm cell power?

      The more I think about it, matriarchal societies are the same way. Men have ZERO power because they don’t raise the next generation.

  3. @Ms. Queen,

    I like your comment. It raises so many ideas.

    About leaving a kid high and dry after a man has failed to opt-out during the pregnancy – well we could just keep the current system and make some adjustments – I think Elam’s O-O argument doesn’t go there – it stops at a single chance to O-O during pregnancy. The father will keep rights to custody, visitation, making educational and medical decisions (as ordered by the court), and will be legally obligated for child support. I see you’re closing some of the loopholes, like men leaving the country.

    So there would be an O-O surtax? And to control their movements? I see your points.

    Now wealth – that’s a hard one. I tend to think men are hard-wired to try to dominate each other and us by using status symbols like wealth (and violence and so on). So that would be a struggle. On the other hand, evolutionary biology tells us that men mainly hoard money not for status but to pass it on to their descendants and maintain their family lines. In fact, having known descendants for their line is possibly men’s greatest motivator and one basis of women’s oppression.

    If Elam wants to cavalierly take that away, by getting them to grab the opt-out carrot without seeing what they’re giving up, what are they saving their money for? Not their sons, since they won’t have any. After a boat or two and a few trips and a lot of bottles of Chateau Lafite down the gullet, it will all seem so meaningless.

    I think it might be worthwhile at that point to abolish money and go back to village life. Barter things we grow and make. Just abolish the stuff. It was always about domination anyway. And no more grabbing collective resources or mistreating animals and nature or other people either. That would mean the special Clockwork Orange Re-education Center for offenders, followed by exile to L.A.

    • Yes I thought about how men like to ‘spread their seed’. You know, Elam flat out stated that in his ‘talk.’ So while men are traveling around we have to apply a tax when they enter new communities first because they put economic strain on the community and second if they do impregnate a woman there should be some prelim money that he had to put in for mat care and early childhood care. He can’t just walk in, impregnate without any giving to the community. Take a village to raise a child!

      Oh I don’t think Elam has really thought this through to it’s logical conclusion. He just wants men to be able to be reckless and irresponsible while leaving behind his own offspring.

      Continuing on with what men would do, well moving around. I’m a bit torn about getting rid of money. There does have to be a way to keep track of how men hoard money because once again, one of the main reasons for O O is not paying for your kid and being a total deadbeat.

      There’s a solution there I’m sure.

  4. Negligent Seed Spreading…a Class 1 Misdemeanor I’d say…a fine, no more than a year in jail, but they could still O-O…no worries, I’m liking the idea more and more…


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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s