Forcing and Manipulating men into impregnating women through reproductive coercion!
Reproductive violence (RV) is a specific type of intimate partner violence (IPV). This article is based both on the national lifetime and 12-month prevalence of two RC victimization measures, and proportions among IPV (intimate partner violence) victims as well as two other types of research on the topic of female perpetrated RV (Reproductive Violence) and male victimization. Men as we will see reported more commonly than women that a partner tried to get pregnant when the man did not want her to. This well fits into the modern paradigm shift that most IPV (intimate partner violence) and DV (Domestic Violence) is perpetrated by women, not men. RV (Reproductive Violence) is at the intersection of many public concerns—IPV, DV, sexual violence against men, male reproductive and mental health, male suicide, as well as other public concerns like institutionalized misandry, male discrimination, forced state cuckoldry of men (paternal forced child support for none biological children) and many more. Official numbers show that more men are victims of this form of abuse. There are some reasons for this misrepresentation. First, this happens because of many forms of abuse as well as specifically in certain types of crimes, women are left off the hook, and not only aren't they prosecuted but the law does not even acknowledge them as being able to perpetuate the crime letting them out of legal definition. Second, in addition to this, men are lacking by the same law any reproductive rights including the denial of D.N.A. as well as a paternity test, which lastly force them into an institutionalized form of cuckoldry with the aim at protecting unfaithful women and exploiting men. Official data of lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of Intimate Partner RC of U.S. Women and Men suggests that in the United States, 8.4% of women (an estimated 10.1 million) and 9.7% of men (an estimated 11.1 million) experienced any intimate partner RC during their lifetime; 1.3% of women (an estimated 1.6 million) and 1.7% men (an estimated 1.9 million) experienced this in the 12 months preceding the survey. Within subtypes of RC, 4.6% of women and 8.4% of men reported that, in their lifetime, an intimate partner tried to get them (or get) pregnant when they did not want them to, and 0.6% of women and 1.2% of men experienced this in the previous 12 months. If we count all crimes perpetrated by women, in fact, in areas not prosecuted or acknowledged by law, reproductive coercion turns out to be a mainly female perpetrated crime. In other words, if we count all types of crimes that women constitute, especially the ones where they are left off the hook like the rape of men and boys, made to penetrate, alienating children from their father, paternity fraud, and many more, it would become evident that the vast majority of this kind of abuse is not perpetrated by men but women. So, what are types of reproductive coercion that women perpetrate against men:
1. Women lying about taking contraception or stop taking them 2. Women damaging condoms 3. Women refuse men to use a condom 4. Women threatening divorce to destroy the husband in the biased court system if not agreeing 5. Women not allowing a husband any say in abortion 6. Gaslighting of men 7. Blackmail of men 8. Men made to penetrate (rape of men) 9. Husband made to penetrate under threat of divorce or otherwise being cheated on (marital rape of men) 10. Infidelity and being forced to raise and finance another man's child 11. Being lied about paternity when infidelity has occurred 12. Lack of reproductive rights by state 13. Denial of D.N.A. and paternity threats - False Fatherhood 14. Emotional, physical, and mental abuse 15. Alienation of children 16. Interfering with men's decision to have a vasectomy 17. A woman refusing to use any kind of female contraception by herself but also denting a man to use male contraception such as a condom or vasectomy 18. Sabotaging male birth control methods, such as poking a hole in a condom or use the sperm in a condom without the men's knowledge to self-impregnate 19. Hiding, destroying, or taking advantage of male contraception 20. Refusing a man based on economic reasons not to afford male contraception (financial abuse). In other words, withholding money to purchase condoms or to pay for a vasectomy 21. Failing to use an agreed-upon pull-out method 22. Purposely and even unintentionally trying to give a partner a sexually transmitted infection 23. Pressuring, guilting, or shaming a partner about their decision whether to have children/not to have/not wanting to have more children
Although NISVS findings highlighted the need for more research on female-perpetrated reproductive coercion, as both men (8.7%) and women (4.8%) reported experiencing reproductive coercion by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011), as always in our gynocentric society female violence is ignored, the abuse of men by women is swept under the rug and no one gives a shit about men's suffering. As always research as usual is concentrating almost solely on women, albeit more men (8.7%) than women (4.8%) reported being victim-survivors of reproductive coercion in the NISVS data (Black et al., 2011). The current public health interest around female victim-survivors but not the male's one of reproductive coercion stems from the gynocentric society's deep contempt and hate of men. Female-perpetrated reproductive coercion is not only a legal issue, not only a contraceptive fraud, and is problematic because it places an unfair financial burden upon male victim-survivors (Chamberlain & Levenson, 2012; Trawick, 2012; Sheldon, 2001), but it robs men of their human dignity, their freedom, it endangers their mental health, physical well-being and thus shows the lack of basic human right as the right over their body. FEMALE-PERPETRATED REPRODUCTIVE VIOLENCE: TOWARD A LONG SOUGHT UNDERSTANDING
Within the frame of public health research especially in the context of intimate partner violence (IPV), recent focus has been paid toward the phenomenon of reproductive coercion, or the use of pregnancy as an exercise of power and control within an intimate relationship (see Thaller & Messing, in 2012; Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2010; Moore, Frohwirth, & Miller, 2010; de Bocanegra et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2007; Raphael, 2005). As I said above recent data from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), indicates that roughly 8.7% of men (and 4.8% of women) in the United States reported that they had suffered from reproductive coercion by an intimate/romantic partner/spouse in their lifetimes, and this type of abuse was classified as one manifestation of IPV situated under the umbrella of control of reproductive and sexual health (Black et al., 2011). As usual within the misandrist feminist research establishment and despite the relative gender symmetry leaning towards a majority of female perpetration and male victimization in these statistics, public health researchers have focused solely upon the consequences of male perpetration, female victimization. This discrepancy cannot be explained by how these phenomena are conceptualized: whereas male-perpetrated reproductive coercion has been framed in the scholarly literature as a significant public health issue associated with women’s unintended pregnancy and physical/sexual IPV (Miller et al., 2010; Moore, Frohwirth, & Miller, 2010; de Bocanegra et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2007; Raphael, 2005), and female-perpetrated reproduction coercion is largely considered an economic and legal issue (i.e., contraceptive fraud) (Chamberlain & Levenson, 2012; Trawick, 2012; Sheldon, 2001), first because it's irrelevant for the individual's damage and suffering, second, because it ignores the public health impact through men's victimization, their mental (and physical) problems, and subsequently the financial impact that again impedes general health problems and policies. The simple answer is that no one gives a shit about men's health and mental well-being. However, given these still notable consequences and the reported prevalence of female-perpetrated reproductive coercion, there is a need to learn more about this phenomenon and the contexts in which it occurs. Reproductive Coercion: Strategies and Motivations
In the absence of specific scholarly research regarding female-perpetrated reproductive coercion, we have to rely upon data available from existing research or statistics addressing female violence. A metta scholarly approach will open a crack in the facade of gynocentric denial and concealment and will enable a glimpse into the ugly reality of the hidden female violence against men. Though there are many methods and tactics unique to women, some are used by both genders equally. Miller and colleagues (2010) described two sub-types of reproductive coercion with male perpetrators: pregnancy pressure (via forced sex, physical violence, threats to harm, or threats to leave the relationship and/or withhold resources) and birth control sabotage (interference with contraceptive methods, such as tampering with condoms and birth control pills or neglecting to “pull out”). Some of the tactics mentioned in their research can be found in the arsenal of violent women: forced sex that is made to penetrate, interference with male birth control as sabotage, tampering with condoms, ignoring pull-out agreements, and many more while some like threats of divorce, leaving the relationship, using the biased court system to inflict financial damage and many more are used more by women. Due to gendered differences in physiology, socialization, and contraception, it can be assumed that men's and women’s strategies for perpetrating reproductive coercion, like their perpetration of IPV, may sometimes differ in some ways and sometimes be equally applied in another way. That being said, women are not necessarily are significantly less likely than men to use serious physical violence or forced sex against an intimate partner. While real physical violence probably will be using less, women have other methods to apply made to penetrate methods against men. This is also definitely the case with reproductive coercion. Additionally, regarding contraception, women, not men, are typically held responsible for birth control (Fennell, 2011; Grady, Klepinger, Billy, & Cubbins, 2010); thus, women may have more opportunities than men to discreetly sabotage birth control.
Regarding the motivation of women to perpetuate reproductive coercion and violence, there are the obvious financial reasons that are child support, legal advantages of a mother and even single mother, the attempt to keep the man committed to the relationship, and many more. But there are also more deep-seated. Accordingly, characteristics of the ideal mother closely align with qualities, such as caregiving and selflessness, typically associated with femininity (Maher & Saugeres, 2007; Malacrida & Boulton, 2012; Marshall & Woollett, 2000). Qualitative studies of women’s perceptions of motherhood found that women often consider childbearing to be an indication of success, or a rite of passage into womanhood, with female peers and media depictions of motherhood reinforcing this notion (Douglas & Michaels, 2005; Marshall & Woollett, 2000). There is sometimes competition with other women reinforced by Intra female sub spheres or dynamics. Specific practices and beliefs around motherhood emerge not from a historical context of intersecting gender, race, and socioeconomic status, but through evolutionary reality sometimes reinforced or enhanced by cultural values thus many women from a variety of circumstances perceive motherhood as a highly crucial endeavor for their happiness (compare with McQuillan et al., 2008, Collins, 1994).
It is worth noting that nationwide surveys found that women’s education and employment did not diminish the importance they assigned to motherhood and subsequently family (McQuillan, Greil, Shreffler, & Tichenor, 2008). In the modern feminist society especially in the west where more and more men decide to go on their own, to give up on women and love, and disapprove of marriage, desperation could be another factor in the motivation of women perpetrating reproductive violence. It is indeed an area that must be researched in the future. We should also remember that Many women attempt to become pregnant even in the absence of ideal emotional, financial, or relationship circumstances for childrearing. Edin and Kafalas (2011) explored the meaning of teen pregnancy in an ethnographic study of women living in an impoverished urban-American location. In this study, they found that women were likely to pursue pregnancy at a young age when education and career opportunities were substantially limited for them because they perceived that having a child would be the most meaningful endeavor, they would achieve in their lifetimes one that would earn them an important role and elevated status in their communities. Though some women in the Edin and Kafalas study hoped that getting pregnant would motivate their partners to become more committed to their relationship, others assumed they would be the primary caretaker for their children and believed that raising a child alone would be easier than co-parenting with a partner who was undependable or unpredictable. Regardless of whether they would sustain a long-term relationship with the fathers of their children, the women in this particular study felt that they had gained something of value by becoming a mother, as many believed that the bond they formed with a child would be more enduring than any they would ever form with a man (Edin & Kafalas, 2011). An understanding of the perceived benefits of childbearing for women is useful in making sense of women’s motivations for becoming pregnant despite their partners’ objections. Rocca, Harper, and Raine-Bennett (2013) interviewed women ages 15-26 of different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds (n=1377) to identify a variety of reasons why women might pursue pregnancy and used this data to develop the Benefits of Childbearing (BOC) scale. The scale included several perceived benefits of childbearing, including feeling “important” (especially among peers), providing a way to “get out of a bad situation,” providing the opportunity to love and be loved, and strengthening the relationship with a baby’s father. However, women who already had one child were particularly less likely to invest in the notion that pregnancy would strengthen their relationships with their partners (Rocca, Harper, & Raine-Bennett, 2013). These findings seem to indicate that youthful idealization, at least partially, may precipitate these perceived benefits, regardless of other demographic factors (Maher & Saugeres, 2007). The extent to which women invest in the perceived benefits of childbearing—and, more generally, the social expectations of gender performativity—may factor into the perpetration of reproductive coercion. In one study, the women in this sample described how they employed both birth control sabotage (i.e., ceasing to take birth control pills and tampering with condoms) as well as pregnancy pressure (i.e., threats to leave the relationship and withhold resources) to coerce their partners into impregnating them. As previously mentioned, a majority of the women (6 of 8) simply stopped taking birth control pills, or told their partner they were taking pills when they were not, to get pregnant. A smaller number of women in this sample (3 of 8) also reported tampering with condoms (“messing with the rubbers”) by poking holes in them with pins. Additionally, one woman recalled “playing rough” during sex to tamper with the effectiveness of the condom, and two women reported keeping a used condom after their partner had ejaculated into it. Jasmine explained, “I got the condom and poured it all inside of me and, like, did a handstand.” Ruth was the only participant who did not engage in birth control sabotage. Instead, she described using pregnancy pressure (or threats to leave the relationship and withhold resources) to coerce her husband into getting her pregnant (“he had everything he needed”). In total, a majority of women in this sample (5 of 8) became pregnant as a result of their acts of reproductive coercion.