"Women rule" by Kathleen Parker

I don't mean to come across as a mad, tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist here, but I know several couples/women who have kids. All of them have had either girls or mostly girls (in the rare case they have had more than one child). I know one couple with 4 girls and only one boy!

I know, I know, it's all anecdotal, it's just a wee weird is all I am saying.

I know of about 10 boys that have been born from my generation w/ friends and family, compared to about 3 girls.

"a world without men, while perhaps calmer,"

I ask you, can you imagine a world with any more than 3 women and no men that was actually calm for more than a week?!

Ultimately the writer is just another turd, in the shitty journalist pile.

"more than 400 clinical trials were conducted on breast cancer between 1966 and 1986, compared to just 121 on prostate cancer...Men have begun fighting back against what they now perceive to be bias toward women's health"

She contradicts herself when she cites a major example of health research bias, then follows that by calling the bias a "perceived" one. Also she says it is "one-upmanship" and adding a "beaurocratic layer" for there to be men's health office.

In other words, when women demand equality it is societal progress; when men do it is one-upmanship. The writer also give us the "okay, we'll keep men around" mentality, as if there is some other choice..as if eliminating men were truly an option (gee, I guess men aren't going to fight back? I would like to ask her, "hey dumbo, who has the physical strength, the guns, and the ammo - women or men??"). She reminds me of Maureen Dowd, a writer who profiteers from society's willingness to hate.

To sum up, the writer shows her true colors at the end of the article. She is just another disgusting, biased feminist pig, and is stupid to boot.

-ax

Especially since women's periods tend to sync up when together for long periods of time. Can we say monthly world wars anyone?

Her conclusions are revolting.

Women have special programs without justification and are doing well, while men don't and are doing poorly; but they shouldn't get special programs.

Men should be thrown a bone by women because they're "weaker" and allowed to exist for women's entertainment.

This is thinly veiled hate disguised as sympathy.

I once published an Op Ed in the NYT--Parker's piece needs a good editor.

For example, "Ultimately, of course, no one wins the war of healthier-than-thou," means that we all end up dead (the theme of her piece). It's beside the point and should have been omitted.

The next clause, "while another layer of bureaucratic one-upmanship is just that..." misses at least two boats. First, the Office of Women's Health wasn't a case of one-upmanship, as Parker suggests by referring to a proposed Office of Men's Health as another layer of bureaucratic one-upmanship, and not just a layer.

Second, advocates of an Office of Men's Health see the office as providing a needed service. Consider that the life expectancy of minorities and blacks has declined, while the life expectancy of white women has improved. The level of health care for minorities and blacks has declined while that for white women has improved.

Her concluding proposal is only worth repeating to remind us that men need to organize for themselves: "A better means for improving men's health -- and saving the males -- is for women to recognize that males are in trouble... ." Perhaps Parker is suggesting that men won't do anything for themselves. If history is any guide, the Office of Women's Health won't spend a dime on men's health, and there has yet to be a protest in the street by women on behalf of men's health.

Parker writes, "If nature is unpredictable, at least she is consistently ruthless." So maybe women will recognize, with nature's consistent ruthlessness, that males are in trouble. But don't expect free political organization or improved health care.

You pretty much tell it like it is.
-ax

Looks like just another misandric piece of trash designed to comfort the writer.

Weakness is nothing more than a perception. Let this one go, she's of no help.

It's getting to the point that I try not to buy books written by women or pansy males anymore, even if they are not apparently anti-male it will be in there somewhere. I also turn the channel as soon as I see a western female reporter discussing politics or the news because I know sooner or later the conversation is going to go "Women.....blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/

Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm