To the opportunistic, misogynist, pro-choice male: the jig is up.

In light of the recent March for Life, along with this current issue of the Obama Administration’s “contraceptive mandate,” I have found myself angstily ruminating on the topic of abortion. It seems the older I get, the more horrifying a concept it becomes. I’ve always objected to it; but now more than ever, I am shocked, disgusted, saddened, frustrated, and bewildered by those who peddle this barbaric practice under the guise of “a woman’s choice” or “safe, legal medical treatment” or “reproductive health,” or any other gross euphemism they come up with.

Being male doesn't make you a man.

So what I’m about to say is probably going to, at first, come off as a bit anti-man. But please understand that I am entirely pro-man – I love men and respect them for what they necessarily are: responsible, mature, loving, loyal, hard-working, strong, and dignified. what I do not love, however, are fully grown males who refuse to become men. Such males mostly shirk responsibility, maturity, commitment, integrity, and sacrificial concern. They are more prevalent in our society than ever – which, I believe, has lead to its undoing. So, that said, I continue.

The reason I am pointing out, or rather taking issue with, the male role in the abortion debate right now is because it just seems odd whenever the issue of abortion comes up on forums, blogs, talk shows – what have you – how males are every bit, if not more, present in the issue than females (on the pro-choice side), commenting away. Which seems strange when you really think about it. I mean, wouldn’t you assume that on such a “women’s issue,” males would feel adequate to simply sit back and let females have the discussion, seeing as how they are the ones, at the end of the day, feeling the direct impact and consequences? But no, pro-choice males swoop in from every direction, making their views abundantly clear… but always on behalf of women. I think this should send up red flags for pro-choice females – the notion that males, who normally do not present much in the way of commitment in other spheres of their lives, are so outwardly committed to the cause of abortion.

One of the things, amidst this whole abortion debate, that stirs the most indignation in me is when I hear a pro-choice male “defend” a woman’s “right” to kill her child. What I’ve  noticed is how these males routinely spout off in the most sanctimonious way, as though they somehow care for the rights or dignity of women. “You just want women barefoot and pregnant,” or “you have no compassion for the poor woman’s situation,” or “you have no right to judge till you’ve been in her shoes!” All these tired retorts are, of course, a billowing, rancid smokescreen designed to give cover to the opportunistic, pro-choice male.

You see, females have suffered for abortion – they have borne its impact in their daily lives, while males have sat by and simply reaped the benefits of prolonged boyhood and sex without consequences (those males who haven’t been aborted, that is). Males like to use female weakness and dependance – the very qualities that feminists decry – to bolster their arguments when “sympathizing” with the poor, incapable, stupid, and hopeless pregnant females. It seems that in the view of males, females do not have the capacity to avoid casually sleeping around and then terminating the resulting pregnancies. Females do not have the capacity to carry a pregnancy to term and then either raise the child responsibly or give the child up for adoption. Interestingly, one of these two outcomes is well within the potential of every female of reproductive age – yet the pro-choice male would have us assume otherwise. Automatically. Because he’s “on the side of women.”

It seems to me that the pro-choice male does not think much of females. He uses them for his pleasure, and then paints them as inept. This same male then argues that he is merely supporting women’s autonomy and sexual liberation. The pattern here seems to indicate to me a very deep misogyny paired with out-and-out opportunism. Use someone and convince them you’re doing them a favor. Meanwhile the pro-life man is characterized as wanting to repress women. It is one of the more sickening ironies; the man who doesn’t objectify women and then support the killing of their offspring is the one holding women down.

At the end of the day I believe women must answer for their use of abortion and be held accountable for it, but I also believe men bare some responsibility in a very profound sense. I actually see it in terms of the fall of humanity. Eve was the first to disobey God, and in her momentary weakness, believe the serpent’s lies and eat of the forbidden fruit. But, it was when Adam followed suit that the world fell into sin and death (Rom 5:12).

16 comments on “To the opportunistic, misogynist, pro-choice male: the jig is up.

  1. ohnimus says:

    coincidently, I just read an article on this very subject right before I read this.

    Unfortunately we now have a pandemic of developmentally delayed boys in their 20s, 30s or even 40s who still live and act like children. As long as this culture of immaturity exists overcoming any of the major hurdles faced by our society today will be very difficult. In the meantime we can help to effect change in our culture by having real men live by example – illustrating true masculinity – and women who embrace true femininity to inspire men and demand better from them.

  2. […] Opportunistic, Misogynist, Pro-Choice Male: The Jig is Up – Kim Vandapool, Uniconoclast […]

  3. packnheatp says:

    I agree, and I would argue that Adam was the first to disobey. It was his duty to ’till and to keep’…shamar. Protect the truth! Stand up for what is right. When the serpent appeared, Adam dropped the ball….just as our nonmen are today.

  4. buckyinky says:

    There is something about “pro-choice” men that makes them particularly insufferable, but I think you miss the point of what is motivating them, especially in light of your main point that men are not actually growing up and taking the responsibility that goes with manhood. You paint a picture of pro-choice men as being hypocritical, that they say they are fighting for the rights and freedom of women in supporting abortion rights when they really don’t care at all about what happens to women.

    I would counter that these men, in fact, care too much about what women think, to the detriment of any principles to which they would hold fast would they have had normal formation as a man. Having been told that the ultimate sign of support for women is to support her ability to have safe and legal abortions, and absent any strong moral principles telling them that this is bosh, or at best having developed no fortitude to hold fast to these principles, they vie for what they perceive will please women rather than what will be good for them. In the end they of course do not gain what is good for women, and then don’t even please women, but rather receive the disdain of women, like the disdain of the woman who authored this post.

    • I may be cynical, but I’m not naive. To suggest that males are more likely to be pro-choice because they want women to like them, rather than because it offers them a brave new world of sex without commitment or consequences, is just strange. And I think even a passive look at this train wreck that is our culture can testify to it better than I ever could.

      • buckyinky says:

        Not so strange. Unless you think that it’s a strange concept that the first man was motivated to sin at least in part in order to please the first woman.

    • “I would counter that these men, in fact, care too much about what women think, to the detriment of any principles to which they would hold fast would they have had normal formation as a man.”

      I think that supports precisely what Kim is arguing. Here’s how. Men care about “what women think” as long as “what women think” supports “having sex without fear of repercussions”. When the perceived benefit is to the man (being able to have sex without fear of repercussions), they are for it. However, think about divorce and custody law. No man is “for” the laws that give them no rights to their children in custody cases, just to keep the peace with females. This would be a perfect example for your theory of “make women happy” to work itself out. However, in contrasting these two examples, the underlying motivation–which Kim has pointed out–is brought to bare.

      Ironically, the contrast only glorifies Kim’s point. Men “support” or “sympathize” with women to relinquish their duty to fatherhood. Then, they are surprised when come to find out, their rights as fathers are taken away from them. So, you are right in a sense, that men are motivated by some kind of shallow sympathy to keep “the mouth quiet (and happy) but keep the legs…”. I think Kim points out that it is the later part of that motivation that is the ground for the former. This sin shows an actual moral digression from the “sin of Adam” (which was a sin against God’s “revealed law” not natural law. Even Adam and Eve could recognize the moral depravity of an act against their own bodies or their offspring. In this case, sin has so degraded the intellect that it can no longer see what is obviously contrary to nature: the killing of one’s offspring and/or the refusal of the parental responsibilities of the conjugal act.

      • Precisely, Brent!

        buckyinky – I can’t know what motivated Adam to sin, although I imagine he did it because he knew Eve would die and he didn’t want to be alone or have her suffer alone for her sin. I don’t think it was as much about pleasing her – OR getting into her pants, for that matter. But I didn’t bring up the Adam/Eve angle to compare the why of Adam’s action, as much as to emphasize that men and women are inextricably connected. Abortion could’ve never become the colossal issue that it is had males not abdicated their manhood in favor of a more commitment-free lifestyle.

        And that’s another thing – most females everywhere want commitment of some form from the ‘men’ they become intimate with. But you don’t see pro-choice male types typically offering commitment to please their lovers. Marriage rates are at an all-time low in our culture because of this lack of “wanting to please.”

        Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, buckyinky. I don’t doubt that there are a few well-intentioned, pro-choice men out there – I just argue that they’re the exception, not the rule.

      • buckyinky says:

        You and Kim are describing misogynists, who consciously hate women. These are few among male abortion supporters, though they do exist, to be sure. I think you overestimate the problem these men present however. The more significant problem among men as it relates to abortion is in their passivity, that is, in their failure to be formed in virtue, specifically in holding fast to what is true and good in the face of opposition. It remains in a man’s nature to protect and not to hurt a woman, and most men sense this still in the core of their being. This part of man’s nature has been twisted so that what should come first, his stand for unchanging truth, he has allowed to become subordinated to the desire first to please women. Such a twisted subordination results in his not knowing, and thus not fighting for, what is good for a woman. It is, however, an unfair characterization of most men, yes even among male abortion supporters, to paint them as misogynists, as active haters of women, or even having the desire only to keep “the mouth quiet (and happy) but keep the legs…” Some men are this way, and stand out because of their horrible and vocal dispositions, but they are few, and do not, I believe, represent a very significant problem in our opposition to abortion, and how men relate to abortion.

      • buckyinky says:


        I somehow didn’t see your comment at 5:24pm before I posted mine. Some of the things in my comment may sound odd in light of what you had just written, but I hadn’t read it yet. Thanks.

  5. Tony Layne says:

    Lady, you took the words right outta my mouth! :^)=)

    This particular area, I’ve long felt, has been where pro-abort feminist ideology has shown the most egregious disconnect from reality. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen or heard pro-abort women talk about “misogynists” wanting to keep women oppressed through motherhood, when historically more men than women have registered “pro-choice” in some form on opinion polls — if you know of a poll where the opposite is true, you’ve found the last dodo. Combine that with all the stories women victims tell about being bullied and coerced by the fathers into abortion, and you have a system that perpetuates the oppression of women by men, One of the historical functions of marriage is that it gives/gave women and children socially-enforced rights over the father. But while there’s some truth to the claim of some men in the past wanting their wives “at home, barefoot and pregnant”, the last forty years have shown that many men will go to extremes to retain an “exit strategy”.

    This was a great post, Kim! Keep it up!

  6. buckyinky says:

    Combine that with all the stories women victims tell about being bullied and coerced by the fathers into abortion, and you have a system that perpetuates the oppression of women by men.

    Perpetuates? When did it begin?

    • Tony Layne says:

      Who says that it began? My point is, if you buy into the whole “men oppressing women” dialectic, then abortion-on-demand oppresses women more effectively than does marriage. But even if you don’t, abortion still facilitates the treatment of women as masturbation tools by treating pregnancy as a disease rather than the natural consequence and biological purpose of sex.

      • buckyinky says:

        Sorry, I see now that you didn’t mean that you were buying into the “men oppressing women” dialectic, but that you were showing how legalized abortion should cause its proponents who say it prevents the “oppression of women” also to say that on the other hand it also contributes to it. That is, if they were being consistent.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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