Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Ahhhh Glenn Sacks. You certainly are an amusing bastard.

If you do a google search for that glorious patriarchal defender "Glenn Sacks" right now the top search result is "GlennSacks.com".

The excerpt from the website that shows up is "We Are The CHEAPEST Online-Drugstore >> Viagra For Sale."

Again that's just what's there atm, so once the ads rotate the excerpt will probably change.

Still. It's fucking hilarious how accurate that description is.

Anyways I had just gotten bored with David Brooks, only moments ago in fact, and decided to check in with Mr. Sacks. To my surprise I found an article that is not *entirely* bullshit. He recently wrote an article about lesbian divorces and child-custody issues. Admittedly I don't know very much about this issue, but to me it seems to be a surprisingly fair, if still somewhat slanted, assessment. (Although a cynic might point out that he only seems to be siding with certain lesbian women because they find themselves in a situation typically associated with fathers.)

But don't worry! Before things get too rational or fair Mr. Sacks sprints to the rescue with this tripe.

Copy and Pasted from the article "If Men Got Pregnant Would Abortion Be Legal":

Most people sympathize with women who have decided to terminate their pregnancies because they conceived as a result of being deceived into believing that their partners had vasectomies or were sterile. By contrast, courts have consistently failed to extend any consideration to men who have been deceived.
Fetal protection laws also demonstrate courts' and lawmakers' concern for women's reproductive rights and disregard for men's; if mom doesn't want to be a parent, the unborn child is a meaningless fetus, yet if it is dad who doesn't want to be a parent, the fetus is considered a living human being.
He never explicitly states that the father should be able to force an abortion; it's still creepy that he would insinuate that.

The "Men's Rights" advocates are one of those bizarre groups of people who, so that I can fully articulate my point of view, force me to co-opt rhetoric that I normally oppose. o.O
In his insistence that fathers and mothers "be treated equally" he seems to miss that fact that there are massive biological differences between the two genders. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of 'financial abortion', which is what I think he was actually trying to imply, where the father severs all legal and financial obligations to the child.

What's bullshit is when he draws a false equivalency between the biological processes that mother goes through and the inconvenience to the father who has to support his own child (a bizarre assertion that only becomes more deranged with his complete omittance of the mother's own costs of raising his child).

Meh. It's a waste of time whining about Mr. Sacks' juvenile dick-waving.

For much more interesting, dare I say fun, juvenile di..... uh.... entertainment go play the new Mortal Kombat.

No comments:

Post a Comment