Are all feminists Morans?

Caitlin Moran is a London Times columnist and author of the recently published “How to Be a Woman”.

She was recently interviewed for New Yorker magazine concerning her views of the continued “relevancy” of the gender ideology of feminism[1]. Also, Caitlin Moran is a dunce. Sure, I could have been clever and used a synonym rhyming with Moran, but it was too easy.

The article redraws several points made in Moran’s “how to be..” notably, that only 29% of American women identify as adherents to the ideology-starting-with-F. This number prompts Moran to ask, in apparent pique: “what do you think feminism is, ladies?”

This photo was altered to make the subject appear less like a smirking Disney cartoon villain

Without pretending to speak for any of said ladies, non-feminist or otherwise, a good many quite likely
think feminism is a dogmatic ideology built on hatred and violence.

After years of addressing this gender ideology and it’s adherents, I’m inclined to think the answer to “what do you think feminism is”? would be a religion of hatred, and from an informal survey of my female colleagues, I know I am not alone in this assessment.

Moran indulges in some begging of the question[2] with her statements “What part of ‘liberation for women’ is not for you? Implying liberation for women and feminism are the same thing, and glossing over liberation from what? She mentions freedom to vote, but passes over the purchase cost men alone have paid historically to earn their vote. Moran mentions the legal innovation of women not being owned by the man they marry. Except that woman have never been owned, no matter how many historical revisionist ideologues claim it.

Moran is also the apparent developer of a new technique of hyperbolic obfuscation, which although she hasn’t published it in the form of a book, we’ll call Moranology. She provides an example of this technique while discussing her related book, Moranthology.

“The idea of not being able to control my own fertility genuinely terrifies me. That one mistake might change your life. That everything I am, and do, could be ended by the repeal of laws our mothers fought so hard for, that women had waited for the entire span of humanity to come about. Because that’s what the anti-abortion movement would want: a situation where no woman is ever allowed to make a single mistake without bearing the consequences for the rest of her life. Just like we used to have, until very recently.

“Imagine a parallel in the lives of men. You go out one night, get drunk, and lose, badly, at poker. You wake the next morning, and someone turns up on your doorstep with a twenty-five-year-old man called “Ray,” tells you, “You’re now financially and morally responsible for this man for the rest of your life,” and then walks away, leaving you with Ray. That’s what not allowing women to rectify—quickly, safely, and legally—an accidental pregnancy is like. Except the Ray version is still easier, because he’s a fully grown man—not a tiny baby you have to labor out of your body, and breast-feed, and tend to at 4:30 A.M., and give up work for. Maybe risk your life or your sanity or your continence for. The unkindness of not letting women decide when they want to be parents takes my breath away. Not only for the simple inhumanity of the act but also because I feel it demeans parenting.”

“It suggests that these people think you can parent terrified, unwillingly, exhaustedly, when you simply don’t wish to. And maybe some people can. But I believe in giving a parent-child relationship the most favourable start possible. And that favourable start begins, for me, with deciding that you want the baby in the first place. Not hoping that you love it nine months down the line, after the government has invaded your body, forced your hand. Women have always aborted. Women always will. No kind government would make a thing that will inevitably happen dangerous, and illegal, again.”

Yes, this is an interview published in the online edition of The New Yorker, and not The Onion. I checked. Twice.

Moran has exactly described the reality of men’s total lack of reproductive rights, but in an apparent departure from the land of reason, sanity and reality, prefaces this all with the phrase “Imagine a parallel in the lives of men.”

She then fictionalizes men’s real, present reality of no reproductive rights, by casting the scene as a gambling debt, rather than forcible financial participation in fatherhood, which is what many men face in the the real world.

Is New Yorker magazine satirizing feminism? Or are Caitlin Moran and the online journal’s editor actually in such denial of reality that they have exactly described male reality – but failed to recognize their own writing, and have re-cast it as a hypothetical. Imagine if men had it like this?

They do, you morans.

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/interview-with-caitlin-moran.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • Jay

    Great analysis JTO. When is the world going to finally wake up and realise feminism is an ideology based on misandry and lies, with the “patriarchy” their theory which is their bible/quran.

    • scatmaster

      feminism is an ideology based on misandry and lies

      Hate movement. Plain and simple.

    • TheBiboSez

      No no no.

      I have it from that good authority Tumblr feminist Raven Moon Dragon that “Feminism is the principled struggle for women to gain equality with men, who are all stupid, evil bastards and it should be ok to throw rocks at them and take all their money, too. Can you see my tits?”

  • Augen

    Your central point is so strong, so right, and so critical, I personally would skip paragraphs 3-6 so as to get straight to it. Simple. Short. Devastating. Do with said feedback as you will.

    As to your closing:

    “Is New Yorker magazine satirizing feminism? Or are Caitlin Moran and the online journal’s editor actually in such denial of reality that they have exactly described male reality – but failed to recognize their own writing, and have re-cast it as a hypothetical. Imagine if men had it like this?”

    You are being rhetorical or course. Still, we know the answer: Framing, Newspeak, 1984 … these are the same people as the lexicographers in Australia who recently changed the definition of misogyny, post-facto, so as to nulify the legitimate complaint of the Australian parliamentary opposition to the fact that the PM and her cronies were incorrectly labeling them with the pejorative.

    There is an imperative: women and women’s interests. All others, logic, fairness, morality, reason, humanity … those are mere priorities that can, and will, be tossed aside.

    Of course you already know that. Just saying.

  • Booyah

    “The idea of not being able to control my own fertility genuinely terrifies me. That one mistake might change your life. ”

    Yet 50 years after the female contraceptive pill men are still waiting and feminists are still opposing it.

  • Mateusz

    Excellent analysis, John.

    Even though you asked it rhetorically, it is a valid question, whether or not this is satire. Extremism is indistinguishable from parody, and modern feminism has gotten to the point of self-parody.

  • Stu

    So much wrong with her views, and not just the fact that the reality for men is in fact her vision of what would be without feminism for women

    For a start, she implies indirectly that if you don’t support feminism, you must want to take away abortion rights. She seems to think that there are only two choices……..pro-feminism, or roll back the clock 100 or more years, and take away abortion, birth control, and even the right to vote.

    So many flaws in her argument I would need a book the size of a telephone directory to fit all the refutations in.

    It wasn’t the suffragettes that fought for and won universal suffrage, it was the labor movement. Suffragettes fought for the right of the elite, rich, white woman to have the right to vote. Also, there was a massive opposition to both the suffragettes demands, to allow their class of women to vote, and also to the union movements demands for universal suffrage, and this opposition came from regular traditionalist women as much as anywhere else.

    Women’s reproductive choices were not given to women by feminists, unless you think feminists invented the pill, or any technology in the birth control area. .

    The typical scare tactic of implying that women who do not believe and support feminists, are some sort of Uncle Toms that are being duped into rolling the clock back and taking away feminist hard won rights, when they had nothing to do with actually producing the technology or the systems which those rights are made possible by, and did not fight on battle fields and die in droves for the right to vote, as men did. They also ignore the fact, that before men, fought and died, to create democracy, nobody had the right to vote, and countries were often ruled by women.

    In any case, this right to vote shit is getting pretty old tooth. A thousand years from now when every woman lives in gold palaces encrusted in diamonds with the best of everything provided for them all their lives, via the population of slaves….all men…..they will still be able to justify the need for more feminism……because once upon a time in the ancient past……women didn’t vote.

    • Steve_85

      Why let the truth get in the way of having a good whinge?

  • scatmaster

    Are all feminists Morans?



  • napocapo69

    “Are all feminists Morans?”

    No, most of them are even worst …

  • sorrelish

    What is your point? That men have ‘no reproductive rights?’ what rights would you like? I’m not trying to be sarky, I am genuinely interested.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      How about the right to unilaterally reject paternal responsibility and obligations for an unborn child during the same time a woman can reject the same through getting an abortion?

    • http://www.johntheother.com John the Other

      What rights? The right to not be forced into reproduction and it’s attendant 2 decades of financial responsibility. You know – the same right we treat as so obvious for women it scarcely merits mention.

    • gwallan

      How about victims of statutory rape not be forced to pay child support to their rapists.

    • napocapo69

      Complementing Paul point.
      There is an ever ending debate regarding abortion, and I do not want to enter in it.
      But there is a clear implication in “a woman body, a woman choice” paradigm inside a relationship, a point that women tend to not realize and feminist do not want to acknowledge to not get backfired.

      If she decides unilaterally (as she has the right to do) to go for an abortion and the reasons for this choice are not health related (i.e., psychological of physical harm to her or the child, to be clear) and he is against this choice, he should be entitled to leave the relationship (divorce) with no alimony duties, simply game over

      If she decides unilaterally (as she has the right to do) to keep the baby and he is against this choice, there should be two clear implications:
      – he should be entitled to leave the relationship (divorce) with no alimony and CSA duties, simply game over
      – she should not be entitled to single motherhood benefits (a proxied way to transfer CSA in a distributed way), because if we establish the principle that she has the right to choose to have or not to have the baby, and he has no stake in this decision, than we must agree that she has full accountability on her choice

      This of course unless we assume that men are basically sperm and CSA donors …

  • Kimski

    “The article redraws several points made in Moran’s “how to be..” notably, that only 29% of American women identify as adherents to the ideology-starting-with-F.”

    That would be Fuckheads, right?
    (-Sorry, but couldn’t help myself.)

    Nice find of another departure from reality, brought on by the disciples’ rewriting of history, and excellent observations, JtO.

  • Raven01

    This is exactly why some people are initially suspicious of our female allies.
    I won’t say most (even if that may be the case) but, a significant percentage of women seem to be completely incapable of empathy or seeing “the big picture” as it affects anyone that is not them or their group. They routinely even exclude their own male relatives and progeny from discussions of rights, needs or wants.

    • Steve_85

      Most is warranted in this situation. Examples abound.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Actually Feminists/women in general exclude their own male relatives(sometimes) and progeny as exceptions, while reviling everyone else’s male relatives and progeny as the norm.

      Go ahead. Ask anyone of them.

      “YOUR son is a potential rapist?
      YOUR son is paid more than a woman for the same work?
      YOUR son controls and abuses women?
      YOUR son is a dead beat dad?”

      “Oh, no, no, no, no! MY son is a perfect reflection of I me, me, my benevolence. I’m a wonderful mother.”

      It’s alllll “other men” that are wrong, bad, evil.

      Trust me. I’ve had these conversations with Feminist mothers.

      “Men” are bad, men are to blame. “Sons” aren’t “men”.

      “Men”…get what they deserve/ MUST have done SOMEthing/ are worthless anyway. “

      • Raven01

        Only to a degree can I agree with that.
        They exclude the men in their lives as “different” by word but not by action.
        They support enacting laws which directly harm those same “good” men and boys in their lives stupidly assuming that somehow this will never impact their lives.

  • Poester99

    Don’t men go to jail for not paying child support in the US? So these men chose to be fathers? no?

    oh, so they “chose” to be fathers when they didn’t keep it in their pants and the condom broke?

    Don’t women also choose the be mothers when they don’t keep their legs shut and the female condom breaks? Oh no no, they must have options, what if they are not ready?!!?!? The poor dears!

    The justification for all this seems to veer into moral/religious absolutism to explain and justify the misandry. Funny that feminists are the biggest pulpit pounding puritans when it comes to men’s reproductive rights.

    Women have rights, men have responsibilities.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      The “new morality” dictates that men should remain chaste or pay the price of an unwanted pregnancy.

      IF she chooses to enforce it, of course.

      Even in the oppressive bad old days when women were expected to remain chaste or pay the price of an unwanted pregnancy, they STILL had the option of adoption.

      No man was ever allowed to hold the threat of poverty, financial burden or imprisonment over her head. He could not force her to do anything against her will.

      She always had a CHOICE.

      Men have NO choice – unless you consider prison a “choice”, but even prison is still her call. He can “choose” to sign away parental rights – if she chooses to allow him that option.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    I personally would like to extend my deepest and most heartfelt appreciation to one Ms. Cuntling Moron, for championing the pain and suffering of males the world over, in expressing so artfully the utter hell we males face each and every waking moment of our lives- one mistake- and we are forever after brutally imprisoned by the state, forcibly extracting any desperate scrap of human autonomy and dignity we might cling to. One mistake- and our lives are confiscated by the state as slave labor. Thank you, Ms. Cuntling Fucking Moron, for making our case so fervently.

    May you reap just deserts in eternal hell,

    Forever yours,

  • Primal

    Yep they are morons. This prominent one in particular always seems to get a pass: The Men are Vanishing Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/opinion/kristof-the-men-are-vanishing-here.html The men are only getting blown apart, shot, burned to death and DYING here but the women’s warmth and comfort are at risk because dying men do tend to ‘vanish’. Morons who presumably have testicles too are the worst kind.

  • http://none universe

    “What do you think feminism IS, ladies?” she writes, after stating that only twenty-nine per cent of American women describe themselves as feminists.”

    – Answer. Aside from the rightful numerous pejoratives used to describe it feminism happens to be a small percentage of the total population. One that utilizes unfounded emotively charged data to confound the greater public to ruin. The kept mistress who destroys family and culture annually for a few baubles.
    This 29% of women are also to whom the world will be coming for when finally realizing the expensive con.

  • Shrek6

    Perfect example depicting the misandry that abounds today.
    Thanks Paul, yet another great find to critique.

    As for the garbage that spews out of the mouth of this disgusting excuse for a human being. So she thinks its better the ‘baby’ is dis-assembled while it is alive and screaming in pain within the womb (see video), is the way to go if she gets herself knocked up while she’s bedding as many males she can get.

    This is a lengthy video, because they go through the history of the Ultrasound machine technology and how that they can now see just about everything.

    I note how she never mentioned adoption. What is wrong with a woman carrying the child full term, then giving the child up for adoption after birth?

    Oh I forgot, the baby (woman) doesn’t want to feel all that pain and discomfort to do with pregnancy and child birth. Mind you being a bloke, neither would I. But then, 9 months worth of discomfort and some pain on the day of the birth, does not outweigh the lifetime of hell that an unwilling father will go through, especially if he ends up in debtors prison.

    Or, what about the pain that a ‘willing father’ will suffer, when he is told his child has been murdered and he had no say in this!

    Time to remove abortion from the handbags of these women and stop them from dictating the terms on who lives and who doesn’t, plus who pays and who doesn’t!

  • dhanu

    First, 29% of all women of the nation is no small number. So many people suffering from a serious mental defect and considering themselves not only normal but superlative to all other people is a cause of concern, especially when the govt is cashing out these useful idiots for its own selfish reasons.

    Second, the other women, knowing the reality of this hateful ideology and seeing its adverse effects on the nation as a whole, may not openly identify themselves as feminists, most of them do like and endorse (well, who doesn’t?) the unbalanced legal and social power that feminism gives them. It’s their consent to the continuation of the ideology that has brought the situation where it currently is.

    So, that 71% of women do not call themselves feminists is no reason to be happy. If they’re not actively opposing it, they’re part of the problem (just trying to speak like feminists).

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      They don’t call themselves Feminists, they may even criticize Feminism…but it’s good to always know it’s THERE when they need it.

      Like claiming you never drink while keeping a fully stocked bar just for “occasions”.

      • dhanu

        @OneHundredPercentCotton Yep, that’s what I mean. Feminism is a backup measure for those women, that they use when the normal solution is dysfunctional or inadequate.

  • Rper1959

    The only thing more unbelievable then the gender biased drivel “authors” like Moran dish up, is that there is an willing audience of feminist brainwashed individuals willing to part with hard cash to read it, hence perpetuating the vicious cycle.

    • Kimski

      “-But..but..There were an article called ‘How to Rape Your Partner in Divorce Court’ in there, too.-I had to buy it!”

  • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

    A good friend sent me her book, and I read it, mostly amused. In terms of the usual feminist discourse, she’s actually pretty good. Moran is a scrubby, chubby working-class girl so she brings a certain irreverance to the conversation, which is refreshing, given the usual prissy, impenetrable bullshit of feminist writing.

    But she absolutely misses out on some key points. Male reproductive rights are a big blind spot. On the one hand, I DO think women should have absolute sovereignity over their bodies (you can read the reasons WHY I believe that on my blog), but we cannot ignore the fact that this gives women absolute power over men’s bodies. Whether or not a man has a child is entirely dependent on the wishes of the woman, and that’s the way it MUST be.

    What men should have is A) a birth control pill and B) completely voluntary child support. When a pregnancy is unintended, women should have the right to decide if that pregnancy will result in the birth of a child, and men should have the right to decide if they wish to dedicate their financial resources to that woman and child for the next 18 – 25 years.

    Getting “unintentionally” pregnant is a snare women use to trap men, of all income groups. We can remove the trip from that snare by eliminating automatic child support. If women KNEW they were going to be the sole financial support for unplanned children, they might make different decisions.

    It’s a reasonable response, and one that could be implemented fairly easily. No child support. Unless the man is willing. End of story.

    Indeed, perhaps child support should ALWAYS be voluntary. That would give women a whole lot of incentive to get married and stay married. It would be a considerably more painful decision to break up a marriage when you know you will NOT have access to your husband’s income.

    Chuck the man, chuck his money, too.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Yes…. but…voluntary child support passes the buck to the Tax Payers when Ms. Singleton, after bravely shouldering the burden, realizes “It’s toooo haaarrrrrddd” to work and raise a child by herself. Not to mention it’s too expensive.

      Or, better yet, claims he won’t pay or she never found out his name, get welfare and together both live happily ever after (a coworker bragged he and his non-wife do this for extra income.

      Women know they will never be the sole financial support for their children. Those “Mad Men” concepts are long gone.

      Reliable male birth control. Save yourselves, gentlemen. It’s your only hope.

      • Shrek6

        Sorry OHPC, accidental down vote!
        Browser is playing up again.

        • TheBiboSez

          Upvoted. I am perhaps too spare with such – a practice I’m reviewing.

      • Augen

        While I totally appreciate the concern that child support claims will be shifted to the state if we drop the concept and recognize it for the peonage that it is, I nevertheless disagree that this is significant enough a concern to matter.
        We must insist that laws are equitable and make sense. For example you can disagree that abortion should be legal, you can pressure, lobby and petition for restrictions on abortion, but … the rights that ARE on the books must be equally apportioned. We cannot agree to dis-proportionate application of law.

        Abortion is legal because there is legitimate disagreement over the human status of fetuses.

        There is no legitimate disagreement over the human status of adult males and females, unless, I guess, you are Caitlin Moran.

        The simple governing principle should be this:

        If you assert and petition to the state your parental rights and custody, and the state recognizes your parental rights and custody, then that is WHOLLY EQUIVALENT to the assumption, by you, of 100% sole and separate responsibility for the wellbeing of said children.

        End. Of. Story.

        If a woman cannot provide for her children, she has no Goddamn business making a peon of any man, to that she may be entitled to her “rights” as a parent.

        And the same holds true, by the way, for a man.

        If two people assert custody – then 100% responsibility to both. No peonage.

        If neither … that is tragic, but that is what foster parents and adoption is for.

        Most importantly though: if women understand there will be no state extracting slavery from men, the underlying problem will be ameliorated, because they will make better choices about when and with whom and whether to have children in the first place.

    • Shrek6

      Women may have absolute rights over their own bodies, but they don’t have any rights over the bodies of the babies they carry nor those of the men either.

      And never should they!

      I would hate to think the world would ever get to the point you describe here, where all women everywhere are the only ones who make the decision as to whether a child lives or dies and the father can go take a hike, because he has no rights and no say.

      Sorry, but that’s the sort of inhumane evil perpetrated by the Communist regime in the early days of the Soviet Union, where men lost everything and women went way off the rails as they were drunk with power.

      It seems the same has occurred in the West and you support women’s absolute reproductive power!

      I disagree with you on that point 100%!

      • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

        @Shrek 6

        It gets into frighteningly Orwellian territory really quickly though,when you consider the implications of letting women raise children they actually would prefer to murder.

        At the end of the day, women who kill their own children should NOT be mothers. How can you condemn a child to a woman like that? It’s too awful to contemplate.

        Caitlin Moran admittedly and unabashedly admits to killing her third child, because it would have been just too much work. What possible good could come from forcing her to have a baby she would prefer dead? What kind of life would that child have?

        Women are capable of terrible evil, as much as any man. Their victims are mostly children, born or not. I can’t find a mental solution to women’s desire to kill their own children other than “let them”. It’s awful, but not AS awful as giving them dominion over children they would rather kill.

        Is there another way to think about this? I’m genuinely curious.

        • Shrek6

          Sorry, but you just did the exact same thing that all these lunatic murderous feminists do. And no, I am not including you in that description.

          What happened to ADOPTION???
          You deliberately left adoption out of the your argument and I would like to know why??

          There are tens of thousands of couples around this globe, in each of our countries who are wonderful loving people and for whatever reason they cannot conceive or carry to full term any children, but would give their right arms to be parents.

          Why is it you women all seem to dismiss adoption?

          All I ever hear is this bullshit ‘my body my choice’ from self absorbed women who care nothing for the child they carry, nor for any other human being.

          And I fully support your comment about not forcing a murderous woman to raise children she would rather kill. Absolutely support that they should never be given that chance or right. If they fall pregnant, then they simply adopt the child out once the child is born.

          It’s not rocket science. And yes I can just imagine all the reasons that could be detailed against that idea. However if we had girls being taught normal things and attitudes about life and about how they are expected to be responsible, from the time of their birth; that the expected procedure for an unwanted birth is adoption, then in the vast majority of cases that is what will happen. And it would happen without fanfare or media involvement.

          The reason women took the path of murdering babies within the womb, is because all the fruit-loop judgmental bitches and bastards in society, pointed the finger at a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock and they persecuted her.

          Now, all arguments are so much pushing toward celibacy (intended or not) out of a committed marriage, especially and mostly for men, which is the best outcome for all when it comes to pregnancies. But women should have never been persecuted by religious zealots for something that is only 50% their fault. They should have been supported and given the option of adoption.

          Plus the life of the child should have been celebrated, not have the child also persecuted, because it is a Bastard.

          And no child conceived, should EVER have to pay for the sins of the parents!

          • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch


            I don’t dismiss adoption at all and I think it’s a wonderful solution. I also think giving the father the option of raising the child alone is a good solution, but if abortion as an option is OFF the table, how are you going to know WHICH women would actually prefer their children dead?

            No woman is going to admit that, if she knows her “property” (and you have to see a baby as property first and foremost to even contemplate killing him or her) will be taken from her.

            Then we’re right back in the quicksand, and millions of children will be raised by women who shouldn’t be anywhere near children at all.

          • Shrek6

            One of the most effective ways of finding out which mothers don’t want their children, will be to remove ALL financial rewards from women who have kids.

            There is no earthly reason why women should be paid all this money. So, if there is no money on the table anymore; they can’t screw over some guy for 18+ years and like here in Australia they won’t be paid a $5,000.00 baby bonus, plus a single mothers pension, then I can see those mothers who don’t want the kids lining up to have their kids adopted and out of their hair quick smart.

            You will always get those who will keep their children and abuse them or kill them. That has always happened and will continue to happen. Compared to mothers, it is rare that fathers actually kill their own children. So, I am a full supporter of giving the unwanted children to their father, and give him the support to raise the child.

            I’m afraid that the answer to this problem is so very complex and I have to agree with you on that point.

            But I will never agree that any child has to die for the mistakes of their parent/s.
            That is totally insane and cold blooded murder!

    • Sting Chameleon

      Voluntary child support plus compulsory visitation rights, unless the man signs a document renouncing his parental rights. Sounds good to me.

  • Verdad

    Was Moran doing illegal substances at the time of writing that article?

    John, I think you should check a third time just to be sure, because what I just read was quite ridiculous. Too much so to be a serious article on a serious website. However your act of tearing up Moran’s views are thorough and reveal strange happenings in this current day and age.

    People these days…morons…

  • alx
  • DominickDestine

    Sometimes I wonder if Feminists themselves think before they speak, because it doesn’t take a particularly large leap of faith to realize that the rights they demand for themselves are rights they fervently deny for men.

    John’s article makes this so abundantly clear and evident that I can’t imagine someone with adequate mental faculty to read it and not immediately defect from feminism over to the MRM. But perhaps I am giving them a bit too much credit.

    Nice job John.

  • Aimee McGee

    When women write about the “baby terrors” as this woman has done I have one thing to say.

    Work at finding a therapist to get over it or find a gynaecologist to sterilise you.

    Quit whining about it.

    I’m a non-breeder. I’ve spent the last 9 years finding a gynaecologist who believed that I was serious that I had made the choice to have no children and I didn’t want to keep putting synthetic hormones in my body.

    I was aparently “too young” until I got to 40 years old to make that decision [one I had told my Mum of when I was 9 years old – I said then I didn’t want to have babies]

    But until such point as I got the operation I wanted, I kept taking those hormones, and I would “double up” with a barrier method (generally female condom) if there was any chance that the hormonal method would fail through sickness, medication change, timezone change.

    I’ve talked through my decision to be a non-breeder with a fair number of mental health professionals, and all have been happy I have considered and rational reasons why.

    Because my not breeding is not about “baby terrors”…it is quite simply I know that I’m not cut out to be the kind of mother I would want to be and maintain the career I love. I’ve made choices.

    Having choices is what equality is about…but choices means responsibilities, and I’m shouldering mine.

  • tallwheel

    Ah, yes. Because only women are financially responsible for their children, and child support payments don’t exist. Thank you for explaining your version of the universe, you Moran.

  • Otter

    It grosses me out that these feminists try to pick up dudes without telling them how much they hate men.

    • Kimski

      Yeah, it’s really _creepy_ when you think about it.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Oh forgive me. An anagram of the woman’s name is “No MRA.”

    If the shoe fits, you know?

    Thanks JTO.

    • dhanu

      Good catch Dr F ;D

    • Kimski

      Good one, mate.

  • Mr. Krishan

    “The idea of not being able to control my own fertility genuinely terrifies me. That one mistake might change your life. That everything I am, and do, could be ended by the repeal of laws our mothers fought so hard for, that women had waited for the entire span of humanity to come about. Because that’s what the anti-abortion movement would want: a situation where no woman is ever allowed to make a single mistake without bearing the consequences for the rest of her life. Just like we used to have, until very recently.” – Caitlin Moran

    Seriously? I see this all the time re: Feminists, but it’s so full of shit I don’t know where to start.

    1) Anti-abortion (i.e. repeal of Roe v. Wade) would not outlaw contraceptives. NOBODY is trying to outlaw contraceptives. The most anybody is trying to do is to keep from being forced to pay for OTHER peoples’ contraceptives.

    2) Rest of your life? If only you could give an unwanted child up for adoption – oh, wait. You can, no questions asked, at the hospital. Without the father’s consent, I might add.

    3) Don’t want to risk getting pregnant? Try exercising some restraint, like men do, and don’t fuck. Nowhere in the Constitution or the law does it state that you are entitled to a risk-free, consequence free fuck anytime your vagina tingles. You get what you pay for. If you get good birth control, or better yet, get your tubes tied, you’re probably safe from pregnancy. Don’t like that 1% failure rate? Don’t have vaginal intercourse.

    And remember; there’s a lot more to sex than vaginal intercourse. Hell, more than a third of women can’t even orgasm from vaginal sex alone; it’s not like you even need it. And poof! You aren’t pregnant.

    4) Want to know who actually don’t have control of their own fertility? Whose one mistake WILL (not might) change their life? Men. Because THEY are the ones who have zero power over abortion, no male contraceptive pill, and no say about whether a child is born, adopted, abandoned, or even whether it has their name on the birth certificate.

    MEN are the ones who don’t control their fertility. All you are afraid of, Ms. Moran, is being reduced to the same lack of options as men. What’s wrong with you: do you fear equality with men so much?

    (Hint: yes)

  • Sasha

    Caitlin Moran’s not alone. Nine months ago the feminist author Rachel Cusk wrote a book, ‘Aftermath’, about the break-up of her family. She’d instigated a divorce against her husband, after he’d given up his work as a human rights lawyer to look after their children. As a result she lost respect for her now ‘dependent’ husband.

    “My husband said he wanted half of everything, including the children. No, I said. What do you mean no, he said. You can’t divide people in half, I said. They should be with me half the time, he said. They’re my children, I said. They belong to me.”

    “I conscripted my husband into care of the children. He gave up his law job, and I gave up the exclusivity of my primitive maternal right over the children.”

    “I had hated my husband’s unwaged domesticity just as much as I had hated my mother’s; and he, like her, had claimed to be contented with his lot. Why had I hated it so? Because it represented dependence.”

    You can read an extract from ‘Aftermath’ here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/17/rachel-cusk-divorce-the-aftermath

    The book has caused a sensation in the UK’s literary circles, as it describes a woman in the process, as one critic put it; “slowly dissecting her husband, the father of her children, with all the silent pitiless savagery of a spider. Cusk is good with words, and the reader cannot help but be horrified as she portrays herself as the agonized victim, all the while subjecting her husband to what is clearly a prolonged months-long episode of clear emotional abuse. At the end of it, one is surprised he’s left standing”.

    The San Francisco Chronicle’s reviewer wrote: “[in] Rachel Cusk’s bleak and rather bravely unsympathetic memoir of marital dissolution, Cusk, a British novelist, sketches a scenario whereby she maneuvered her husband into the role of househusband, then scorned him for occupying it. She is not sure whom to blame for this radical inconsistency: her feminism, her parents, her schooling, or simply whatever was in the water when she was growing up.

    “At any rate, having been raised in a culture that privileged “male values” like striving and winning, she says that upon having children she could not embrace the conventional duties of mother. So she “conscripted” her husband into doing them; he quit his law job, and she came to hate his “unwaged domesticity.” During one post-separation encounter, it comes as a surprise to her – but not to the reader – that he in turn has come to hate her.

    “Reading, it’s hard not to despair at the nature of relations between the sexes: Dear God, you think, will wives always find a way to be angry at husbands? Will things never get better? Have things actually gotten worse?”

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Aftermath-by-Rachel-Cusk-review-3779984.php#ixzz2CkzR3TG8

    The reaction from the public to ‘Aftermath’ has been intense, and Cusk is now widely-reviled.

    Guardian Interview: http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/20/rachel-cusk-divorce?cat=books&type=article

    Slate Review: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/books/2012/08/rachel_cusk_s_divorce_memoir_aftermath_reviewed_.html

    • Stu

      For all the bitching and moaning women do about how great is their contribution of staying at home caring for children etc, when a man does it, it is worth exactly zero to them, and they can not handle having to support another adult.

      This is how society sees men that take the traditional female role too. Heap the praise on the women who do it, portray them as sacrificing slaves that are worth many times their husbands contributions to the family, and use it to justify taking everything and giving it to the woman in the event of a divorce. But, when a man does that role, it is devalued to being worth nothing, and he is seen as a parasite, a kept man, who does not pull his weight.

      For all their blowing their own trumpet and high noting themselves for their “harder” roles, I am yet to meet one women who has taken the traditional male role, in it’s entirety, for the long haul, and was happy in it. Most start to nag their husbands to get a job, and usually will end the relationship in a relatively short time if they don’t. On top of that, these women usually only take the job part of the male role, and only then if it’s a safe, clean, physically undemanding job. All other male tasks and responsibilities remain the mans.

      • Stu

        Oh, on top of that, after a man has been a house husband for a couple of years, no employer will want him. A women can take that role for as long as she wants, and put it on her resume……no probs. Try being a man and putting “home duties” on your resume as your job for the last couple of years. This will do nothing but create an impression to your prospective employer of a lazy good for nothing unmotivated slob……you might as well just say you were in Jail for the last couple of years because it wont look much worse.

  • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

    @ Stu

    For all their blowing their own trumpet and high noting themselves for their “harder” roles, I am yet to meet one women who has taken the traditional male role, in it’s entirety, for the long haul, and was happy in it.

    Yep. Seen this play out with my next door neighbors. They both wanted their daughter, planned her and then when she was born, oops, mommy couldn’t hack it. She wanted the baby in daycare, but Daddy said “no fucking way”. So he stayed home and was her primary caregiver from birth until she was five.

    And during that time, the wife came to HATE him. She was jealous of the affection between Daddy and daughter and hated having to support the family.

    The marriage dissolved, and luckily the Dad had some very high tech training and skills and was able to find employment pretty easily.

    Who got custody? The mom,of course. Unbelievably outrageous! A leopard doesn’t change it’s spots, though. The little girl, in actuality, spends most of her time with her beloved Daddy, because Mommy still pretty much doesn’t give a shit about her, but it’s a travesty that she was awarded custody when HE is the one who raised her.

    I can not, for the life of me, understand people like David Futrelle and his ilk who are okay with that. How is that okay? It’s not just outrageously unfair, it’s CRUEL to the little girl.

    It makes me seriously sick.

  • Atma

    John, you apparently agree that abortion should be legal, but you don’t like the analogy she used in her argument. Why tear her down when you agree with the basic argument? Why not write an article about how it’s important to BOTH men and women that control over reproduction be legal. You’re just spreading hate and taking the focus off the actual argument.
    BTW. Moran does not rhym with moron. And Feminism is about fighting for equality, not superiority.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      If there are feminists actually fighting for equality I’d like to meet them. Feel free to point them out to me, but don’t give me any airy generalizations please. My experience in this area is extensive and the only ones I can find are usually ones who aren’t actually politically active or influential in any way over public policy. If there are exceptions I’d like to know about it.

  • Peter Armstrong


    Great article. Moran is yet another of the army of feminist idiots which infests our media here in the UK.

    It’s hard to say whether her failure to see the male perspective on reproductive rights is deliberate, or just down to some kind of mental deficit.

    I saw your presentation of this article on You Tube and I hope that you don’t mind some constructive criticism but I thought that you just reading it out came across as a bit stilted.

    Perhaps if you talk around bullet points rather than reading from a script it would come across as more natural and easier to engage with.

    Just a suggestion.

  • MotherOfASon

    I actually have her book, I can say she’s not a total idiot, she’s half correct, but just like every other feminist she’s been spoonfed the idea that complete hypocrisy and ommision is absolutely fine.