I have no words….

I put this up on Twitter, but those of you who don’t follow me there will still find this….

I can’t find a word for what this is.

I hope it’s a joke.

Here’s the text in case the picture is too small:

Mothers who breastfeed boy babies need to stop. We need to empower more females in this world and by breastfeeding them we are giving them a good start in life which they deserve over a baby boy [sic] which are already physically stronger than baby girls. I have feminist views and I am not ashamed to admit that. No baby boy will ever be fed from my breasts if I am unfortunate enough to have a son. Formula for him and circumcision to take away sexual pleasure from him when he grows up.

 

 

*bigger picture courtesy of Maggie McNeill at the Honest Courtesan.

 

http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/

 

 

What do you say to something like that?

Wow.

Absolutely zero love for this, or the horrible person who wrote it.

JB

Slutty feminist WOMEN with fucked up personal lives are heroes. Slutty feminist MEN with fucked up personal lives are mentally ill traitors. Really now, Hugo, you didn’t see this coming?

It’s interesting to me to see the compassionate response the complete meltdown of male feminist Hugo Schwyzer has elicited from the very men he has repeatedly attacked for their supposed “misogyny” and hatred of women.

Paul Elam at A Voice for Men expresses his sorrow at the mess Hugo has found himself in, and places enormous truth value on Hugo’s claims that he suffers from a fairly serious mental health problem.

To be completely honest, for the first time I actually feel sympathy for this troubled soul. His unchecked sociopathy and childlike lack of governance over his base impulses have led him to a place few gender ideologues will ever go: To simultaneous personal and professional destruction.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/sycophants/schwyzer-bows-out/

William Pierce at The Spearhead has similar thoughts:  Hugo has some crazy in his pants, and while Pierce doesn’t demonstrate quite the compassion that Paul does, he takes the prospect of Schwyzer being suicidal quite seriously, although he is quick to place the responsibility right where it belongs. Fair enough.  Men do commit suicide at alarmingly high rates that amount to a national healthcare crisis.

Finally, I’d like to point out how topsy-turvy things are when we have male feminists fooling around with porn stars and flying to Ukraine (Lord knows what Hugo was up to there) while manosphere writers cause scandals by settling down in monogamous relationships. It’s a crazy world out there…

Hugo, when you behave in this manner, it isn’t your critics who are causing your problems: it’s you.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/08/01/hugo-schwyzer-caught-with-pants-down/

I’m not criticizing any man who lines up behind Hugo, or demonstrates empathy or concern.  In fact, it’s a pretty terrific example of exactly how NOT cold-hearted and quasi-violent men who question feminist ideology are towards those who routinely attempt to shame them into silence.

When a man is hurting, other men at least pause to consider that someone here is hurting.

That’s a pretty beautiful sentiment.

When it comes to Hugo, I don’t share it.  Not for one second.  I think Hugo is being a total pussy and missing out on a fantastic opportunity to point out the fucking hypocrisy of the ideology he has thrown himself behind professionally and personally.

What Hugo should be saying is “Step off, bitches.  You do the same shit and spin it as liberation and freedom. My personal life is none of your goddamn business”.

Let’s start with the Grande Dame of feminism herself:  Simone de Beauvoir.  She supposedly had an “open relationship” with Jean Paul Sartre, and she pursued him for her entire life.

Yet in this lifelong relationship of supposed equals, he, it turned out, was far more equal than she was. It was he who engaged in countless affairs, to which she responded on only a few occasions with longer-lasting passions of her own. Between the lines of her fiction and what are in effect six volumes of autobiography, it is also evident that De Beauvoir suffered deeply from jealousy. She wanted to keep the image of a model life intact. There were no children. They never shared a house and their sexual relations were more or less over by the end of the war, though for much of their life and certainly at the last, they saw each other daily.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/10/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety

Is de Beauvoir a pathetic simpleton who can’t get it through her head that her cheating genius will never, ever ruck up with a ring and a dress?  Is she mentally ill to allow her life to be dictated by a man who openly sleeps with other women while she seethes at home alone with jealousy?  Does anyone question her feminism because she plays the role of the dupe?  All her passions governed by one man, whom she cannot have?

Nope.  She’s a goddamn hero.

Erica Jong launched sluttiness as a virtue in 1971 with her book Fear of Flying.  Married four times, she reveled in the fuck and run mentality.

“The zipless fuck is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game . The man is not “taking” and the woman is not “giving.” No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife. No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless fuck is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one.”

The book is one long erotic fantasy of just grabbing and banging whatever guy gets your motor running, and women embraced the challenge rather thoroughly, all the while lauding Jong for her audacity and the liberating effects of zipless, no strings attached fucking.

Eat, Love, Pray?  Hell yeah, ladies, ditch your husband and kids and go on a sex and food tour.  It’s good for you!

Sex and the City?  Ladies, if you are not cultivating greed, avarice, tons of stupidly expensive shoes and bedposts notched to toothpicks, you are doing feminism WRONG!

…to dismiss the programme entirely on the basis of its shortcomings as a feminist text would also be to lose out on what it does deliver. Just to take the most headline-grabbing example, that includes some pretty frank discussion of sex, in which female sexual pleasure and agency is obviously considered a fundamental right, rather than a privilege.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/apr/16/women.film

Ladies, you have a fundamental right to be a slut!  Okay, I’ll buy it.

Why don’t men have the same fundamental right?  Why doesn’t Hugo?

Granted, Hugo has been a bad, bad boy.

Sex with undergrads.

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/tag/teacher-student-sexual-relationships/

A botched attempt to murder a girlfriend while high on who the hell knows what.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/hugo-schwyzer-controversy

Cheating on his wife with a 27 year old sex worker.  NSFW.

http://therealpornwikileaks.com/hugoleaks-male-feminist-hugo-schwyzers-sexting-scandal-exposed-nsfw/

All the while railing against older men lusting after younger women.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/its-okay-to-call-a-guy-creepy/277256/

And cheering for monogamy.

http://jezebel.com/5982801/the-war-against-monogamy-is-bullshit

Yeah, so Hugo is a giant fucking hypocrite.  This is news?  The real question is why, Hugo, do your lady friends get a pass for all their shitty behavior without anyone questioning their ideological commitment or veracity, while you are driven to the brink of suicide by doing the exact same shit?

Riddle me that.

Sex with students?  When the teacher is a woman, that’s just all good fun!

“There is still a double standard out there, and it’s almost a joke — ‘Hey, he got hit on by some pretty teacher, what’s he complaining about?’ ” said Ramsland, who has worked with the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit. “Many don’t see it as much of a crime, and one of the factors that women are getting off easier is some don’t see them as a big of a threat as a man.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18726100

Getting a pass for attempted murder?  There are too many to even cite, but I love this woman who hired a HITMAN (who was really a police officer) to kill her husband and she got the full out pussy pass.  No penalty of any kind.

Women’s justice groups are urging the Supreme Court to stand by a decision that acquitted a Nova Scotia woman for trying to hire a hit man to kill her estranged husband due to years of abuse.

The abuse was so severe the husband was awarded custody of their daughter.  Must have been really bad, right?  Or complete and utter bullshit.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/14/case-of-woman-acquitted-of-hiring-hit-man-to-kill-abusive-spouse-goes-to-top-court

Older women lusting after younger men?  Why, that’s just natural!  All that young, virile sperm.  And the muscle tone of a young man!  Ooh, baby.  Bring it on.

As women decline in fertility, their sex drive gets a supercharge in order to maximize their remaining baby-making chances, new research from the University of Texas at Austin reveals. Women in the low-fertility group (ages 27-45) were much more likely to report having more sex, wanting more sex, and having more (and more intense) sexual fantasies. “If you’re trying to maximize your remaining fertility, it makes sense to seek out a younger partner because his sperm is healthier,” says lead researcher Judith Easton.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201101/field-guide-the-cougar

And monogamy?  What’s that?  Why should women embrace that dreary old shit?  I particularly love this story, plastered everywhere, about how Simon Cowell knocked up his best friend’s wife!  She is apparently delighted to have snagged the BabyMama Crown from the grasping hands of the other members of the Aching Ovaries Brigade.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2383825/How-Simon-Cowells-lover-Lauren-Silverman-joined-celebrity-elite-despite-humble-origins.html

None of these issues, or women, are being called out on feminist media sites. Nothing to see here.  La la la la.  The top stories on Jezebel?

What to do with your slobbery drunk friends?  Fuck ‘em, is basically the advice. Gosh.  Lovely to see women lining up in each other’s corners, no?

http://jezebel.com/what-to-do-with-your-barfy-blackout-drunk-friend-950590611

What to do when your period is so heavy you can’t go to work!  Jesus.  How heavy does it have to be? What is your job?  Shark tamer?

http://jezebel.com/i-cant-come-into-work-today-because-im-menstruating-p-1001094616

Lindy West, who gets bigger with every new post, had a breastmilk lollipop.  Ewww. Do you have suck everything that comes near your mouth, Lindy?  Really?  No limits at all?

http://jezebel.com/i-sucked-on-a-breast-milk-lollipop-and-lived-to-write-a-963078087

The rest of the stories are just as compelling.  Jezebel has lots to say, but very little of it focuses on the issues that Hugo is being excoriated for all over the feminist media.

Hugo, ask yourself why.  Why is it that WOMEN get a pass for doing all the same shit you do, or at the very least are met with some pretty deafening silence, while YOU are basically being deprived of your ability to make a living or contribute to society in a way that you want to contribute.

Notice something else, too.

Look carefully at who came to your defence.  It wasn’t the pack of fucking bitches who are willing to toss you under the bus for committing the exact same infractions they extol when women are the protagonists.

It was men.  And a few men in particular.

You’re a fool, Hugo, if you cave into the demands that you present yourself as mentally damaged, in need of medications and self-flagellation.  Your lady friends might forgive you this time, but you will always walk that tightrope of being barely acceptable and you will always be the first one they sacrifice.

You went to the Dark Side in search of cookies, Hugo, not seeming to realize that feminists HATE cookies.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/08/01/do-not-give-feminists-cookies-feminists-hate-cookies-no-cookies/comment-page-1/#comment-18070

Come into the light.  We have cookies, and everything else too!

Start here.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

And please, whatever you do, do not give them the satisfaction of destroying you utterly.  They won’t mourn you.  Not for one second. Don’t become another tragic statistic.  Your crimes were not crimes at all.  Being human is not a crime.

Even if you happen to be male and human at the same time.

Lots of love,

JB

[We all survived the surgery, just so you know, and everyone is happy and healthy back at home]

Babies should not be separated from Mommy overnight during the first year of life? How about they should not be separated from their Primary Caregiver, and sometimes, that means Daddy.

 

 

Here’s a story making the rounds in a number of papers, but I have a weakness for the hyperbole of the Daily Mail, so I’ll use that as my main reference. The story is this: babies who spend nights away from their Primary Caregiver (usually owing to custody agreements) experience reduced attachment to that caregiver.

 

 

Of course, the DM equates Primary Caregiver with Mommy, and while that’s generally true, it by no means HAS to be.

 

US researchers set out to discover what happens when babies under 12 months old spend a night or more per week away from their mothers, as increasingly happens when separated parents share custody.

They found that such infants had more insecure attachments to their mothers compared with babies who had fewer overnight stays or saw their fathers only during the day.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372868/Nights-away-mum-leave-babies-secure-New-findings-affect-custody-rulings-young-children.html

 

Let’s turn our attention first towards what the word “attachment” means.

 

 

Infants become attached to individuals who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from about six months to two years of age, this is known as sensitive responsiveness. When the infant begins to crawl and walk they begin to use attachment figures (familiar people) as a secure base to explore from and return to. Caregivers’ responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment; these, in turn, lead to internal working models which will guide the individual’s perceptions, emotions, thoughts and expectations in later relationships.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#cite_note-Bretherton.2FMul-2

 

Babies who DON’T experience this kind of attachment to a loving, responsive caregiver can have some serious difficulties to contend with throughout their lives.

 

Attachment disorder is a broad term intended to describe disorders of mood, behavior, and social relationships arising from a failure to form normal attachments to primary care giving figures in early childhood, resulting in problematic social expectations and behaviors. Such a failure would result from unusual early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers after about 6 months of age but before about three years of age, frequent change of caregivers or excessive numbers of caregivers, or lack of caregiver responsiveness to child communicative efforts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_disorder

 

This new research, as referenced in the DM, seems to suggest that separations BEFORE six months can be just as deleterious on an infant’s attachment to their Primary Caregiver.

 

 

Personally, I agree. The idea that infants are tabula rasa prior to six months is nonsense, to me. All three of my children seemed completely in awe when they were first born and heard me speak and could see me for the first time. They did not react to the midwives, who were not familiar, regular voices to them, nor did they react to other people who were not regular visitors or guests in our home.

 

Aside from me, there was one other person the babies seemed astonished to hear for the first time: their father.

 

 

His voice was completely, utterly familiar. Even in sleep, their eyes would flutter when Daddy spoke or sang to them. The two younger children reacted the same way to the voices of their older siblings. They knew those voices. They were already attached to them.

 

It’s hard for me to set aside my Mommy instincts and try to objectively consider whether some babies might be better off with a primary attachment to their fathers, which is kind of odd, because I also believe at the same time that had I died during childbirth, my children would have been absolutely fine in the care of their father, whom they recognized from his voice.

 

What I do want to tackle is the idea that “shared parenting” is the ideal way to care for a baby. That the baby is EQUALLY attached to both parents, or to all the people (it takes a village) who help raise the child.

 

http://www.phdinparenting.com/blog/2013/3/10/equally-shared-parenting-and-breastfeeding-is-that-possible.html

 

It’s bullshit. Babies need one Primary Caregiver. One person to whom they are deeply, inextricably bonded, and that person needs to be loving and responsive. I firmly believe that normal, well-adjusted women will understand that biologically, they are programmed to be that caregiver. The baby that comes out of their body is best served if they are fed from the same body, and if they bond deeply to that body. It’s a continuum that nature has evolved to ensure the best odds of survival.

 

 

There is no question that breastfed babies are at an advantage over their chemically nurtured counterparts. They are happier, smarter and healthier.

 

Children exclusively fed breast milk for at least three months have up to 30 per cent extra growth in the key parts of the brain which control language, emotion, and understanding, say scientists.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2337374/Breast-really-best-want-brainy-baby-Just-THREE-months-breastfeeding-boosts-development-30.html

 

‘What we found was that infants fully breastfed for six months had a significantly lower risk of respiratory infections in the first two years.

‘Specifically, the chance of contracting pneumonia was reduced fivefold, while the risk of recurrent ear infections was minimised twofold.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-113533/Breastfed-babies-times-likely-catch-colds.html

 

I’ve written about women’s refusal to breastfeed before, and just how I feel about that, but when the issue of custody and wellness comes up, I think there is another layer of nuance that can be added to the discussion.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/13/refusing-to-breastfeed-your-child-yeah-that-makes-you-a-shit-mother/

 

While I will happily say that breastMILK is best for baby, I am now forced to pause to consider if breastFEEDING is really all that important, or if the benefits of breastfeeding can be delivered equally by either parent.

 

 

When our next door neighbor decided that motherhood was actually a shit deal and went back to work when Peanut was five months old, Peanut’s Daddy stepped in and he “breastfed” his daughter. He would tuck her inside his hoodie with her bottle (full of breastmilk) tucked into his armpit, and hold her up high while she “nursed”. It was actually the cutest damn thing in the world. She had all the benefits of skin-to-skin contact, and warmth and snuggling and listening to his heartbeat and it was just lovely all around.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/26/what-do-women-want-from-marriage-oh-everything-is-that-so-much-to-ask/

 

It’s hard to imagine a judge ordering a baby into Daddy’s custody, and simultaneously ordering Mommy to provide the baby with expressed milk. Holy Jesus, could you imagine the headlines?

 

JUDGE ORDERS WOMAN TO BE DAIRY COW

 

WOMAN FORCED TO PROVIDE NUTRITION TO HER OWN CHILD

 

JUDGE ACTS IN BEST INTERESTS OF CHILD

 

But why the hell not? We already know that men don’t get to decide if they want to be parents. If they are going to be forced into it, why shouldn’t they be able to take actions to reduce the contact they must have with the child’s mother while sacrificing ZERO of the bond they might have with their children?

 

http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/10/legal-parental-surrender-is-not-morally-equivalent-to-an-abortion-and-no-amount-of-bitchy-sarcasm-will-make-it-so-yeah-amanda-marcotte-im-talking-to-you/

 

One can easily imagine feminists jumping on board with the “no shared custody of babies” argument, based on the idea that it fractures the baby’s attachment to a Primary Caregiver. Fair enough. That would be a new argument: NOW (the National Organization of Women) at the moment opposes shared custody because it limits women’s abilities to sue for child support, but why not add such a compelling physiological argument to the arsenal, too?

 

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

 

 

 

Ultimately, it could end up being a very nice precedent. Baby needs an uninterrupted attachment to a primary caregiver. No overnight visits. Watch all the women nod their heads in approval. Yup. Drop off your checks and don’t plan on any overnights with the baby for a good long time.

 

Right up until the moment it’s Daddy who wins custody. Then the screaming will begin.

 

 

Fair won’t seem so fair then.

 

What we really need is a campaign that shows fathers “breastfeeding” their infant children. Ubiquitous representations of fathers as equally capable, equally responsive, equally loving caregivers of infant children. Do I think that’s ideal?

 

 

No way. But when mothers SUCK, and god knows I have plenty of personal experience with that, then yes, fathers can and SHOULD be able to step in and take over. And needless to say, they should be awarded child support for taking on that task.

 

I can’t readily imagine that happening. But it would be a step towards equality, wouldn’t it?

 

 

Gee, maybe I am a feminist, after all.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB