| 'One NH Democrat's Objections to the Men's Commission' | Login/Create an Account | 18 comments |
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
Mensactivism.org is not responsible for them in any way.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should mention that from the people I know who attended the full Senate debate on HB 587, that the impression was got that the Republicans were uncomfortable with the bill until Senator Jane O'Hearn spoke passionately in favor of it. It is widely believed by those who attended, that if she didn't speak out for it, that we probably wouldn't have won the vote.
Senator Wheeler is my Senator, and I have tried several times to reason with her about this bill, but she is obviously quite beholden to the women's lobby and they have a very firm grip on her.
Also, one Democrat (I can't remember who at the moment) did vote in favor of HB 587).
Just FYI.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting that the Democrats seem to have been pretty united to defeat the men's commission. It's also interesting that the "Republicans used their majority power to pass the measure." As discussed somewhat on another MANN thread, it should be noted that judging by this article the men's commission will have no funds for offices, personnel or operating expenses. (Boyce said the bill will not cost the state any money even though a financial analysis on the bill predicts annual costs of more than $60,000. Boyce said those assume personnel, office and operating costs that are not planned.) Perhaps funding can reasonably be expected from other sources. If not, the commission may be a sham.
The Republicans and Democrats, the Republicrats, often work together providing a pretense of doing something while really accomplishing nothing. It can be an effective way of silencing dissidents. I wonder if that's what's happening here. The Democrats oppose the men's commission, while the Republicans support it. The commission is created but can do nothing because of a total absence of funds, and the ruling matriarchs get a huge laugh out of having pacified the men's movement somewhat. Is this such a case?
We generally agree not to discuss politics here outside of men's issues, so I wouldn't say that the Republicans are overall (men's issues, environment, civil rights, etc.) better than the Democrats or vice versa, even if I believed it. It's interesting, though, that at this time the Republican Party seems to have more members who are sympathetic to men's issues than the Democratic Party. The Independent Women's Forum provides some evidence of this.
It might be best for those who oppose oppression of men and boys to stay spread out into both parties but that might water down our message and influence. Perhaps we should consider moving into one particular party to present our desire for equality and justice more effectively.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 16, @12:23PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"a financial analysis on the bill predicts annual costs of more than $60,000"
How much money does the women's commission get in NH?
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When this bill came up last year in the state legislator (only to be stalled after the house vote), I computed what percentage of certain groups voted in favor or against the bill. This is not scientific and my numbers could be slightly off. Ignore roundoff error.
There are 397 members of the NH House. In 2001, 256 were Republicans, 140 were Democrats, and 1 was a Libertarian. By name recognition, 270 were men, 118 were women, and 9 were of unknown gender. Of those of known gender, there were 200 Republican men, 49 Republican women, 69 Democratic men, and 69 Democratic women.
46% of men voted for the bill, 37% against, and 17% didn't vote.
43% of women voted for the bill, 36% against, and 20% didn't vote.
47% of Republicans voted for the bill, 38% against, and 15% didn't vote.
44% of Democrats voted for the bill, 34% against, and 21% didn't vote.
49% of Republican women voted for the bill, 28% against, and 22% didn't vote.
48% of Democratic men voted for the bill, 28% against, and 25% didn't vote.
45% of Republican men voted for the bill, 41% against, and 14% didn't vote.
39% of Democratic women voted for the bill, 42% against, and 19% didn't vote.
The Libertarian, a man, voted for the bill.
In summary, most support came from Republican women and Democratic men, followed by Republican men, with Democratic women being the only group opposing the bill. Although the statistics are poor, it may be that the most opposition came from the "women are to be protected" conservatives and the "women are victims" liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:Politics by Thomas (Score:2) Tuesday April 16, @01:07PM EST
- Re:Politics by Thomas (Score:2) Tuesday April 16, @01:21PM EST
- Re:Politics by shawn (Score:1) Tuesday April 16, @01:42PM EST
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 16, @06:39PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"it's not institutional discrimination"
It's not? I'd like to see how Sen. Wheeler rationalizes state funding for women's issues, but not for men's.
But we shouldn't judge her too quickly.
Here's a picture of her. Her face is so wrinkled she wouldn't notice anything even if she raised her head out of a KFC bucket long enough to see if it's cream filled.
Check out that scarf and uncharacteristically closed mouth.. She's hiding chins like a rhino and breath like a wino. Either that or she just overflowed the toilet.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are not suffering the kind of institutional discrimination women did.
Indeed? And just when was Ms. Wheeler circumcised?
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
