|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think its that simple. Even conservative men are against this though in most cases I have seen.
O'Reilly was calling men scum basically for not contributing to their children's lives. I say, if you want to give money to your kids whose stopping you???
There is no reason to force anyone else to contribute in any way.
Believe it or not, this will solve about 99% of the problems we have in family courts today.
Which is why the lawyers are so opposed to it, no conlfict no paycheck.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zen and Vince,
These are two well thought-out posts that are logical and to the point. I agree that C4M as it is currently defined is absurd, based on feminist-communist free love ideals, has roots in Marxism, and is at best highly destructive as a proposed norm. This social experiment has in effect been tried before. We only need to look to the Soviet Union and Marxism to see this kind of thought:
- One of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children.'
- Soviet Union began claiming there were no illegitimate children.
- Religious marriage was replaced by civil marriage, divorce became easy to obtain, and unwed mothers received special protection.
- Women were granted sexual equality under matrimonial law and abortion was legalized.
- The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary.
- Laws were passed that made divorce take a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage.
- There was an epidemic of marriages and divorces
- The League of Communist Youth, an organization with about two million young men and women, regard the refusal to enter into temporary sex relations as mere bourgeois prejudice, the deadliest sin in the eyes of a Communist.
- In the early 1920s the weakening of family ties produced a wave of nearly 7 million homeless children.
- Madama Kollontai, Russia's foremost feminist leader and first woman ambassador (to Norway)…in favor of free love. [Argued] As a solution for the vexing problem of children she suggested a scheme of 'marriage insurance,' to be financed by an annual levy of one dollar on every adult citizen of the Soviet Union.
- The result was chaos and Stalin found he had to strengthen the family unit.
So we see that the C4M argument is simply free love femi-communist argument that the natural father of a child doesn't matter. The source of the C4M argument is in fact femi-communist forms of Marxism. They argue that the primay factor in determining the father is the relationship (not biology), and in femi-communist ideology we find that biology has little to do with determining the father of a child, if anything at all.
This kind of argumentation leads down a path of thought where the male is devalued to little more than a sperm donor with little or no human value. In effect, this is what the C4M crowd is arguing. They just want to be considered sperm donors that can relinquish all responsibility for a child. By dehumanizing the father in this way, they are able to morally justify their desire to abandon the child. The danger of this is that making the male simply a sperm donor cuts the other way.
For example, in the Soviet Union by 1926 Commisar for Justice Mr. Kursky who proposed that, “ The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'burgeois customs' of Europe and America. In those countries, he said, the husband can bring a friend who declares that he also lived with the woman, and the latter is then left defenseless. ”
Note the contrasting American and Communist values. The Soviet Union advocated having the state assign any male, at the request of the mother or by order of the state, to have paternal responsibilities. In America, biology is a significant component in determining the father of a child. This is a uniquely Western value that the C4M crowd must destroy for their free love ideal to be valid.
In addition, we even see the C4M crowd suggest there should be insurance against an unwanted child. This is just like the communist feminist Madama Kollontai proposed. Again we find that the C4M argument is nothing more than a femi-communist argument of free sex without consequences.
Note that the C4M crowd is too ignorant to recognize the failure of the Marxist social experiment early 1900's. The experiment literally resulted in the destruction of the family, millions of homeless children, and hence the near destruction of the Soviet Union. Even Stalin recognized the need for a strong family. Today we find history repeating itself in America as the communist rad-fems get their way.
Clearly, the C4M crowd wants to avoid responsibility and in effect damage the larger population by claiming that fatherhood is just about a relationship and that biology doesn't matter. They are literally whining because women have the right to an abortion and therefore embrace communist ideals to justify their argument. Note that this same crowd will howl the cry of victim hood when they have to pay for a child that isn't biologically theirs.
In America, those that value the preservation of the natural family, recognize the need to argue in favor of preserving the biological lineage of the child and identifying the true biological dad. That is an American ideal that is worth preserving. Going against this ideal makes us equal to the rad-fem communist and not to each other. C4M is an argument that tears at the ideal of preserving the biological relationship between the father and the child.
If there is C4M then it should come in the form of the absolute right to a paternity test. Not all states will permit that practice. Much like the Soviet Union feminist ideal, we find American rad-fems using the power of the state to permit the mother to name any male as a father, regardless of her sexual activity, regardless of the childs biolgoical lineage, and we also find the state has the ultimate power to order the male to be the father.
If men want true choice then they need to stop these immoral females from victimizing innocent children by naming the incorrect father.
Finally, men must stop the state from having the freedom to name any male as a father of a child without the results of a DNA test. C4M should really mean having the choice to know a child is your biological offspring.
The C4M crowd is contributing to the devaluing of the family unit and the advocacy of a system where any male can be named the father of the child by reducing the value of a bio-dad to a sperm donor. In that way the C4M crowd in effects supports a communist ideal that is founded in Marxist feminist-communist thought.
If we embrace the ideals of the C4M crowd then we might as well make children property of the state and pay parents to raise the donated children. This is in effect what the C4M ideal leads to. It is time for the C4M crowd to become real men and accept responsibility for their actions.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb,
Can I hear your main objections? I got a bit lost with the communist angle.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb,
Can I hear your main objections? I got a bit lost with the communist angle.
Cheers.
My main objections. Well I suppose there is quite a bit to swallow. Here are some of my key objections:
- All forms of C4M ideals or social experiments have been tried and can be found in the history of Marxism.
- C4M is an immoral free love ideal that American dope heads adopted in the 70's.
- C4M unquestionably leads to the destruction of the family and civilization.
- C4M advocates embrace principles that will make the current situation with regards to the family unit much worse by magnitudes.
- C4M has it roots in socialist free-love ideals that were born out of a feminist Soviet Union train of thought. It is not a new uniquely American idea. It is an idea of the ignorant masses.
- C4M advocates support the devaluing of the importance of preserving the biological basis for determining a father
- Advocates who support C4M in effect believe in the mass surrender of children to the state as property. Then the state in turns redistributes the children to a deconstructed nontraditional family unit.
- Advocates of C4M believe in a practice that will further increase the devaluing of children, their abondenment, the further rapid increase in criminalization of children, increases in gang activity, and a massive increase in homelessness.
We hear that history repeates itself, and the wise will observe the patterns to avoid repeting obvious mistakes.
Well I strongly suggest taking a look at the Soviet Union when it first began to embrace Marxist ideals. You will find close parallels to every social ill that we are experiencing today as a result of the devaluing of the biological relationship between the father and the child.
C4M will have the effect of further devaluing the importance of the natural father. With that devaluation will come an increase in the rate of decay in our civilization.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that:
If a woman is not rewarded for getting pregnant, then pushing the man out of her life - or more importantly, the life of the man's child - then the family system would be strengthened.
One point you made in your earlier missive is that the soviet union did not advocate C4M. A man could be assigned paternity on the needs of the woman/state. This is what we have today, and coupled with abortion, keeps the heel on male necks.
I think what should be gone to - since we have abortion - is fatherhood strictly by mutually agreed to contract - and madam, if you can't get the man to voluntarily agree, without state coercion, you do have a choice. Abort. Carry to term and you have assumed the responsibility to electively be a single mother. No aid. No child support.
Thus, if a woman wishes that support check, she will have to concede things:
> DNA testing. On her dime.
> Regular visitation and/or joint custody.
> A meaningful veto over choices in rasing the child - or surrender her power to veto the father's choices.
> Surrender of her right to relocate while the child is a minor.
> Meaningful sanctions and penalties if she fails to hold up her end of the bargain.
> Etc., etc.
What this will amount to is a contract that will resemble a .. (A drum roll) traditional marriage. Her "choice" to be an "Strong, Successful, and Independant" single mother will mean just that - No help from the purported father. No help from the state. Lose the child if you fail - no second chances.
Without choice for men, her body or no, abortioon should be illegal in all but the most in extremis cases.
See, C4M is a response to C4W. So long as there is C4W, there will be calls for C4M.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 07, @10:52PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that turns me off, and likely many others, from C4M is the rhetoric used - even the word "choice" in the title. I don't enshrine "choice" as the highest good, especially not the perverted form that "choice" has become, as described by zen. And the "equal rights" rhetoric is just as unappealing. Men and women are different - always have been, always will be. As Rich Zubaty (I think) has put it, asking whether men and women should have absolutely equal rights is somewhat like asking whether fish and a bird should have equal rights. The question is essentially meaningless. Men and women are both human, however, and thus have inalienable human rights - but abandoning their child isn't one of them. Nor, however, is interfering with a child's relationship with the other parent. The only point that I can agree with C4M supporters on is that if a woman and the government are going to connive at preventing a father from being such, then they should absolutely be the ones paying all the bills.
But if we can get beyond the "choice" and "equal rights" rhetoric, may I suggest something even more devastating to pheminists than C4M, and unlike the failed experiment in the Soviet Union (if you believe warble's arguments), this has been tried before and worked. It's automatic paternal custody. Want equal rights to your child as a woman? You'd better get married - and stay married. Paternal custody was the norm 100 years ago - and the problems of today just didn't exist. Dr. Daniel Amneus has detailed all of this in his books The Garbage Generation and The Case for Father Custody.
If a woman is not rewarded for getting pregnant, then pushing the man out of her life - or more importantly, the life of the man's child - then the family system would be strengthened.
She won't be, and wasn't, under paternal custody. And who can argue that the family system wasn't much stronger 100 years ago?
A man could be assigned paternity on the needs of the woman/state.
Assign all you want, but the woman loses the say-so in the raising of the child, and the children, learning self-reliance from their father, are much less likely to become docile, compliant wards of the Nanny State.
I think what should be gone to - since we have abortion - is fatherhood strictly by mutually agreed to contract - and madam, if you can't get the man to voluntarily agree, without state coercion, you do have a choice.
Aren't you forgetting that today the state will void the contract under the alleged "best interests of the child?" A father, wishing to be a father, cannot be so, even with C4M.
Thus, if a woman wishes that support check, she will have to concede things... What this will amount to is a contract that will resemble a .. (A drum roll) traditional marriage.
Bingo! Except that some professional women, or women with other means (don't forget even if you exclude the state there are still plenty of "progressive" institutions with lots of money), may do just fine without the support check and thus still be able to exclude the father. But under paternal custody the mother will lose her children unless she concedes those things.
I really think that while C4M may be a Bradley, paternal custody is a nuclear weapon.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's begin:
All forms of C4M ideals or social experiments have been tried and can be found in the history of Marxism.
Wanting a say in family planning beyond "keep zipped or abstain" is not communist.
C4M is an immoral free love ideal that American dope heads adopted in the 70's.
C4M is quite moral, more moral than forced fatherhood or hadn't you noticed?
C4M unquestionably leads to the destruction of the family and civilization.
Calm down willya? Letting the nearest man decide if he wants to a father will not lead to that.
C4M advocates embrace principles that will make the current situation with regards to the family unit much worse by magnitudes.
So C4M would be much worse that the current status quo where the worst women get awarded and the most responsible men get punished? I doubt that.
C4M has it roots in socialist free-love ideals that were born out of a feminist Soviet Union train of thought. It is not a new uniquely American idea. It is an idea of the ignorant masses.
Simply put, the status quo does not work, but C4M is far more simple and effective. I'd talk a bit more, but it's quite late over here.
C4M advocates support the devaluing of the importance of preserving the biological basis for determining a father
Sounds more like paternity fraud to me.
Advocates who support C4M in effect believe in the mass surrender of children to the state as property. Then the state in turns redistributes the children to a deconstructed nontraditional family unit.
This is one of the most common counter arguments against C4M, whether or not a child is born is down to the woman.
Advocates of C4M believe in a practice that will further increase the devaluing of children, their abondenment, the further rapid increase in criminalization of children, increases in gang activity, and a massive increase in homelessness.
Now what is this really about? Come on, let's hear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now what is this really about? Come on, let's hear it.
It's about a social experiment that has already been tried during the early 1900's in the Soviet Union and failed. The failure was so damaging that the result was 7 million homeless criminal children running in the streets. The number of similarities today are truly astonishing.
Gee. Is that similar to what we have today in America with the highest criminalization rate of children in the world? Is it similar to the gangs that we have running in the streets carrying guns? Is it similar to the car jackings that we have the privilege to experience? Is it similar to the massive divorce rate and the rise in couples living together where children fail to benefit from the stability of marriage? Of course it is. This is Soviet history repeating itself in America. Only a mental retard would deny the similarities.
This is about ignorant C4M advocates refusing to acknowledge the significance of history and the lessons to be learned.
Advocates of C4M cannot reach their conclusions without relying on rad-fem socialist free love ideals that have been tried and failed.
It's about having one wrong in the form of mass uncontrolled abortions, and using it to justify the wrong of permitting men to surrender their natural responsibility to a child. It's about morality...something the C4M crowd forgets in their zeal to defend socialist free love ideals.
It is about the feminist socialist free lovers posing as masculists who want to surrender responsibility for the child that may result from their sexual activities. Two wrongs to not make a right and never will. These are not real men and they never will be real men so long as they want to abandon children so they can have the socialist ideal of free love sex.
The C4M argument by definition depends on the socialist feminist ideal of an abortion on demand with the elements of socialist free love ideals. Using that foundation, the C4M advocates fall into a socialist rad-fem trap of demanding a right that doesn't exist.
Men will always be morally bound to care for their natural offspring. Failing to do so reduces the male to little more than a dog in heat or a female-humping sperm donor. The C4M crowd adds no nobility to the male gender and only devalues the male in order to justify their immoral feminist-socialist free love ideals.
Perhaps sometimes I'll tell you what I really think about these PENIS-HEADS!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright Warble, What's your solution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright Warble, What's your solution?
To what?
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To what?
Actually, nevermind. I'm a bit too tired to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dittohd
Yes, you are correct about equal rights, however, I'm not so sure about choices ?!?!
Maybe I'm just gettin' ol' an' cynical, but when I see 'choice' for women it usually means 'disadvantage' for men. In reproductive rights women have the 'rights' and 'choices', men have the 'responsibilities' and 'no choice'. To quote Dr Samuel Johnson "Authority without responsibility is the prerogative of the harlot !"
In the UK, I have nmanaged to stimulate a real battle in the letters pages of a professional journal about what we call 'Equal Opportunities'. What we are presented with is a Utopian fantasy of 'Equal Outcomes', based on the Feminazi "victimhood" concept; in that we should positively discriminate for women - our American Cousins call it 'Affirmative Action' - to address some spurious historical 'evil' whereby women were oppressed and we should redress the balance by placing women in senior positions of our organisations - despite the fact they may not be the best person for the job. I have argued constantly against the Orwellian 'doublethink' notion that to have equality of opportunity we have to favour one group over another ! The body that is meant to protect workers and society from discrimination called the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) has 16 Board Members of which 13 are female !? We seem to be replacing University educated, middle-class, white males with University educated, middle-class, white females.
I think it was zenpriest in a previous section who likened 'choice' to a menu. We all get the package deal at birth, however, women now want the cafeteria menu - to pick and choose the morsels they want and ditch the ones they don't. This I think is accurate, I remember reading an article in a newspaper about equality - a little Glasgwegian man [known as a "wee glesga keellie !"](citizen of Glasgow, Scotland) saying;
"Aye, wimmin want equality - but it disnae stretch tae buyin' their roond at the bar !"
Absolute Classic !!
TC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd
No, D, I am a totally different individual - I bide in the UK. The name comes from "War of the Worlds"
TC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been in many arguments about c4m, and I remain totally unconvinced. The best I have been able to accomplish is to keep my opposition silent and not actively oppose it.
Gonzo has been very eloquent in articulating the point of needing to take a philosophical position and consistently sticking with the principle whether or not it works to one's advantage at that particular moment in time. How this applies to c4m is that in trying to build a beachhead for men's rights, nothing is more legitimate than father's rights. Personally, I believe that c4m plays right into the stereotype of the "deadbeat dad" - reinforcing the belief that men want to "play" and not have to "pay". Men have never had the female right of the feminine mystique and always being able to "change her mind." The biggest reason that women have been discounted through the years is that one moment they can be absolute dead certain of one position, arguing you to the death on it, and the next moment be equally dead certain of the exact opposite position. Without consistency, there can never be any true power.
However, the most fundamental reason that I do not believe in c4m is extremely subtle: I believe it would be VERY BAD FOR MEN.
The word "choice", like most of feminidiocy, actually represents a perversion of the language. It has become a code word which actually means freedom from accountability and the CONSEQUENCES of the choices they have made. The absurd extreme is represented by the obese person who sues MacDonalds over being fat from all those Big Macs that they CHOSE to gobble.
I would certainly like to have the "choice" between going to work and spending my time lounging on the French Riviera. Used in that sense, it dishonestly embeds assumptions about power and wealth into a simple noun which describes a simple action.
In fact, I DO have that choice. I could sell my house and use the money to finance a period of immature indulgence, at the end of which I would be destitute, unemployed, and without prospects. Thus, EVERY DAY I exercise my power of "choice" to get up and go to work and keep power over my own life.
Philalethes just posted a link which contained the quote: "The more I'm willing to be responsible for, the more impact I can have in my own life." I think every man should engrave that on his forehead and chant it like a mantra every time he looks in the mirror. "Impact"=POWER. The more I am willing to be responsible for, the more POWER I have in my own life. In this one respect, women have been right when they said they had "no power" because what they want isn't really the power which comes from responsibility, accountability, and the willingness to take action; but rather the ability to live in a fantasy world and not have to face less-than-pretty reality and make their choices accordingly by applying forethought and intelligence.
I do not need c4m. I already have 3 choices which give me all the power I need to avoid unwanted fatherhood:
1) abstinence;
2) use a condom;
3) get a vasectomy.
What annoys the shit out of me about women is that they demand that the entire world change so that THEY don't have to. I have no use at all for men who want to follow the same path. One woman I was involved with many years ago once got a "humorous" birthday card playing on Freud's question "What DOES a woman want?" One of the "answers" was "chocolate cake without calories." Such a thing does not exist and the masculine ethic has always involved the ability to see the world and reality for what it is and make "choices" appropriately. One consequence of too much chocolate cake is a fat ass. Don't want a fat ass? Simple, don't eat too much chocolate cake. Don't want fatherhood forced on you? Simple, take the responsibility to take measures to insure it does not happen.
Rich Zubaty wrote a book titled "Surviving the Feminization of America." C4M is a perfect example of the outcome of this feminization, and makes sense only from a feminized world view - "the entire world has to change, so I DON'T have to".
The more men become like women, the less anyone likes them - men OR women. Robert Bly once observed the rise of what he called the "soft men" who had lost the historic male strength of self-sufficiency and adopted the female position of passivity and helplessness. What I point out is that taking that position is, by itself, a CHOICE. We can choose to be weak and passive and watch helplessly as the culture drifts more and more into complete dependence on the nanny state, or we can CHOOSE to make the hard and difficult choices BASED ON an intelligent understanding of the CONSEQUENCES of those choices, and thus gain all the power over our own lives which it is possible to have.
To my way of thinking, that is the REAL "choice for men", and we already have it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 05, @12:24PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post, zen.
I too think that C4M is a bad idea and should be dropped from the men's rights agenda, for several reasons.
1) If C4M is adopted, it is likely to seriously jeopardize father's rights initiatives. We will be vulnerable to feminists saying "well you knew what the laws were like and could have opted out of fatherhood during the pregnancy so you have no right to complain now".
2) Support for C4M will very likely turn off conservative, pro-life men. My personal opinion is that eventual support for men's rights is much more likely to come from the right than from the left, for many reasons. It can be argued that C4M does not force the woman to have an abortion; that is true. However, the man is still given the option of severing (or denying, if you prefer) his parental relationship before birth, whereas (from a pro-life perspective) the woman will only be able to do so after birth.
3) Without realizing it, some C4M supporters may actually be subtly deluded by feminist rhetoric. C4M, it is true, gives both parents the right to eschew parenthood for a certain period of time. That time period, however, is not the same: most C4M proposals I have seen have a cut-off period of three months post-conception, or post-notification of pregnancy, whereas the mother can decide to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. But, above all, the mother still has the unilateral right to decide the child will be born, whereas the father does not. Is this because some C4M supporters really believe the rhetoric that it is really a "woman's body" , "her child" and/or "her choice"? Anyway C4M as it is currently proposed does not result in strictly equal rights for men and women.
4) As I alluded to in points #1 and #3 above, C4M supporters have not worked out in detail the consequences and ramifications of a man choosing not to exercise his "choice". As Gonzo says, correctly, take a philosophical position and stick to it, and judge at the end whether it really results in truly equal rights for men and women.
The answer is not C4M, but rigorous enforcement of father's rights. That should be something on which all men's rights advocates can agree.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too think that C4M is a bad idea and should be dropped from the men's rights agenda, for several reasons.
I'm for keeping it because it's a political trump card. The idea of it scares women. It's scares women's groups. And since we are going to have people pushing for it anyway, let the pheminist collective spend time and money and effort combatting it.
1) If C4M is adopted, it is likely to seriously jeopardize father's rights initiatives. We will be vulnerable to feminists saying "well you knew what the laws were like and could have opted out of fatherhood during the pregnancy so you have no right to complain now".
Vince, we already have that. Now I'll tell you what is a real argument here, though, is that such a law, if written, would be so toothless (all a woman would have to do is keep her mouth shut during and for 90 days after the pregnancy, and she'll be able to claim child support) that it will be worthless.
2) Support for C4M will very likely turn off conservative, pro-life men. My personal opinion is that eventual support for men's rights is much more likely to come from the right than from the left, for many reasons. It can be argued that C4M does not force the woman to have an abortion; that is true. However, the man is still given the option of severing (or denying, if you prefer) his parental relationship before birth, whereas (from a pro-life perspective) the woman will only be able to do so after birth.
Conservative, Pro-life men aren't on our side anyway, they're chivalry junkies who constantly repeat the mantra of "Suck it up - do the right thing - be a man AS A WOMAN DEFINES IT."
3) Without realizing it, some C4M supporters may actually be subtly deluded by feminist rhetoric. C4M, it is true, gives both parents the right to eschew parenthood for a certain period of time. That time period, however, is not the same: most C4M proposals I have seen have a cut-off period of three months post-conception, or post-notification of pregnancy, whereas the mother can decide to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy. But, above all, the mother still has the unilateral right to decide the child will be born, whereas the father does not. Is this because some C4M supporters really believe the rhetoric that it is really a "woman's body" , "her child" and/or "her choice"? Anyway C4M as it is currently proposed does not result in strictly equal rights for men and women.
And while you may view it as a subtle quibble, the position I take is not one of "choice for men" but one of "Sole choice equals sole responsibility." Let's instead place the burden of proof on female shoulders, to deal with good faith, and to make concessions for parental rights rather than have the law in their corner from start to finish.
4) As I alluded to in points #1 and #3 above, C4M supporters have not worked out in detail the consequences and ramifications of a man choosing not to exercise his "choice". As Gonzo says, correctly, take a philosophical position and stick to it, and judge at the end whether it really results in truly equal rights for men and women.
There's a sticky point, but as with above, I'd submit we are already there insofar as the denial of parental rights go (towards men.) Ever try to enforce visitation? Ever try to exercise parental rights, a veto, or to give permission the custodial (mother) parent has vetoed?
Let's face it, those of us who have been in the non-custodial position KNOW that being a father is one of name only, and allowed only at the convenience of the woman.
The answer is not C4M, but rigorous enforcement of father's rights. That should be something on which all men's rights advocates can agree.
Unfortunately, though, this "vigorous enforcement" will require "vigorous prosecution" of women, which is something both the political left and political right agree is unacceptable for them to do.
The position I take - look. What do we hear from the pro-abortion crowd? "Just because a woman consents to sex, doesn't mean she consents to motherhood! You just want to Return us to totalitarian victorian moralistic times of the 1950's in a "Ozzie and Harriet" or "Leave it to Beaver" country that never existed! Blah! Blah blah blah!!...."
Then, when it comes to men - "You knew the risk when you had sex. Suck it up."
Which one is it? The sexist disparity has to stop. Either one assumes the risk - or one doesn't. Male of female.
If one believes one doesn't, one must support C4M, after some fashion.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 05, @11:59PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo, I agree with you completely on your points about hypocrisy and double standards, and that sole choice/sole custody should equate to sole responsibility. And thanks to this site and others, even those of us not in the non-custodial position know that being a father is allowed only at the convenience of the woman.
As a conservative, pro-life man myself, however, I want to ask you if you really think I am not on your side. If not, why not? If so, why do you imagine all of us to be "chivalry junkies"? You think that all of us condone abortion, adultery, and walkaway wives under the pretext that it is always the man's fault? If so, I think you paint with far too broad a brush. I grant you, however, that there are plenty of pro-life women who take that view, and insist on seeing mothers who have had their babies killed as "victims". That is a major problem that I have with the movement as a whole.
But my other question to you is that it seems your support for C4M is based on desperation. I'm not meaning to criticize you for this. I just want to know if it is an accurate assessment. C4M still doesn't result in equal rights for men, as I pointed out. The woman can choose the birth of the baby, whereas the man cannot. Your attitude seems to be that abortion laws will never be reinstated, and that father's rights will never be enforced, due to reluctance to prosecuting women. Therefore, the only thing which can possibly be done is to make women alone financially responsible for the consequences of their "choices". I have to admit, unfortunately, you may well be correct in your analysis of the situation and that desperate times may call for desperate measures.
However, what worries me is that C4M may well result in a successful operation but a dead patient. Many so-called "financially responsible" women are not so in reality, what with welfare, WIC, state-subsidized housing, daycare, medical insurance, etc. Who are we really kidding if we think that the women in question will ever accept responsibility for their "choices"? Somehow, some way, that responsibility will always be shifted to others. At least I can agree that a few less people will be hounded by child support enforcement, but the cost of that may well be many more people being hounded by the IRS.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difficulty is in seperating the personal and the political. It's often a keystone of pheminist thought that the personal is the political; and while they are keen to sneer at the male ability to compartmentalize their thought, it is a male strength.
Personally? I think if you don't want the time, don't do the crime. Pregnancy and a child is a logical consequence of sex, either protected or unprotected. Even the best contraception methods have a failure rate. Don't want kids? Don't have sex. B follows A just as surely as night follows day.
Hence, I don't believe in "unplanned" pregnancies. Those who believe "It can't happen to us" are at best plain stupid. And those who would use abortion as retroactive birth control are in my not so humble opinion both irresponsible and selfish. And if it were Gonzo's world, either type would be deemed "Too stupid to be allowed to breed" and would be summarily neutered and spayed upon discovery.
In cases of genuine rape (And I regard incest as a form of rape) I would support an immediate D&C proceedure. In cases where they baby was hopelessly deformed, yes. In cases where the mother's life was threatened, yes.
As birth control? Not just no, but hell no. And not just hell no, but hell fucking no. Killing a baby because of "parental" stupidity is morally murder in my eyes. And I fully endorse the right of people to suffer the consequences for gross stupidity.
It'd be nice to live in a perfect world, wouldn't it?
We don't, and reality is, abortion is not going away - but it's not going away because it's seen as an escape valve. Until attitudes on abortion change, it will stay there.
This is why I am for C4M in the form of "Sole Choice = Sole Responsibility."
Right now, abortion is a panacea and a sacrament for the pheminazis and their allies. (Christ man, I have personally known two women - one a lesbian - who personally got knocked up just to HAVE an abortion so they could "identify" with their "sisters!") It's the ultimate escape from personal responsibility - better so, it's a way to control men. Boyfriend not supportive enough of you and your "choice" to have an abortion? Then don't have it, and make him "pay, pay, PAY!"
See, women don't have to negotiate. Draw a flowchart sometime, and no matter what the female chooses, she has a safety net. No matter what the male chooses, he gets stuck, often as not with being her safety net. This is WHY abortion is so popular. All the choices, and someone else picks up the tab.
Free schooling. Free support. WIC. AFDC. Food stamps. Subsidized housing. Subsidized day care. And "daddy" when the woman deems it convenient, and if he's too much of a hassle, we'll keep him away and dip into his wallet for you.
Now close your eyes and imagine if you will that safety net being taken away. An elective proceedure - on her dime. You chose to put yourself - and the baby - in these straits. No more free schooling. no more free support. No more WIC, AFDC, Food stamps, Subsidized housing, or subsidized day care. Can't support the kid - well, we'll give it to someone who can. And no more running to "daddy." You should have negotiated with him better, and worked it outt - after all, you are the "Superior" consensus building, negotiating, interpersonal gender, eh?
I don't believe that the government has any place in the family - hell, I don't even believe in state sponsored marriage - it's a contract, work it out yourselves, and we'll store it as a matter of record. Plan for dissolution, or suffer the consequences.
We used to believe in consequences. If you were irresponsible, a cad, a tramp - you paid the price. Responsible people were a good example - and irresponsible people were a terrible warning.
Sluts and cads paid the price for their folly in shame and social sanctions. No man wanted a slut, and no woman wanted a cad. And unwed parenthood was a lot lower then by factors of a hundred.
Quick check - what's the current rate? 25% - higher in certain racial and economic demographics. In the black community it exceeds 50%.
Why? There's no motivation for daddy to stick around, or for mommy to keep him around. Dads who "do the right thing" suffer. Moms who "Do the right thing" are abandoned by social services. "You have a man around? NO HELP FOR YOU!" (The help-nazis, the DCFS version of the soup-nazi)
I am, philosophically, very pro-life, though not "pure" enough for the pro-lifer movement. But until abortion has a cost, I feel that trying to outlaw it is pure mental masturbation.
Yes, all the classic arguments are so shot full of holes it's a wonder it stays afloat. Abortion clinics aren't consistantly required to have lifesaving trauma equipment, or even a physician on staff, which essentially makes them de facto back-alley dives.
Women still go out of town, and sneak around because they know deep down they are doing something shameful.
It causes depression, suicide, and in many instances infertility, foprever, from post-procedural complications.
So I have to close vince, that my position is not one of philosophical, but rather political consistancy? Desperate? I don't think that's quite the word. Pragmatic and expedient I'll plead guilty to.
We're all big about trying to work it out between men and women, to talk it out, toi negotiate. Reality is, though, there will be no move by women as a whole to come to the negotiating table. Why? They don't have to. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by doing so right now.
Why we keep insisting on playing the same rigged game is beyond me, though.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 05, @01:22PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but "use a condom" just isn't good enought.
1) Condoms have a significant failure rate. More generally, the possibility of using contraceptives hasn't eliminated women's "fundamental need" for abortion, even up to the point of a child's birth. Does anyone care about the effect of an unplanned pregnancy on men? "Planned Parenthood" sure doesn't.
2)A lot of men would prefer not to use a condom. Absent better methods of male birth control, many men would like to rely on their partners' assertion that she is using birth control. If she's lying, and an pregnancy occurs, the "child support" agency can ruin a man's life, irrespective of the women's fraudulent claim.
Homosexuals now have a constitutional right to just have consensual sex in the privacy of the home without being persecuted for it by the government. When will heterosexual males get the same right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 06, @04:26AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
You make a good argument, zenpriest, but I see some inconsistency in your logic. First: there is a difference between "taking responsibility" and being a good old slave. How can one take responsibility if one does not have the choice to begin with? IMO, it will be impossible for fathers to have any kind of rights without this fundamental right for men. Second, I see your political analysis as basically correct. But if you don't support C4M and do support the "men's movement" then you get painted as a reactionary. So you get painted either way. So if you are going to get painted anyway, shouldn't your philosophy be consistent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can one take responsibility if one does not have the choice to begin with?
As I said in my initial statement, the way the word "choice" is being used these days represents a perversion of the language. There is an undertone to it which implies being exempt from the law of cause and effect. Circulating around the net is an essay called "the bill of NO rights". One of the items on it is "If you poke yourself in the eye with a screwdriver, you have no right to force the maker of the tool to make you and your family independently wealthy."
I see "masculism" as little more than "me-too-ism" following step-bystep in the same erroneous footsteps as feminism - issue by issue taking the man's view without any overall philosophical consistency and being extremely self-serving. Looking at what feminism had done to women, I would hate to see the same thing happen to men - leaving the only people left to take adult responsibilities being the children.
I pretty much gave up on the men's movement and arguing with other men several years ago. There are reasons why men still haven't managed to get their act together to create a viable and effective men's movement even after 40 years of this crap. We waste all our time and energy arguing with each other.
First of all, you may not see that you have choices, but I believe that I do have choices. And, I have exercised them consistently throughout my life for the purpose of avoiding becoming a slave. By the time I turned 18, I viewed the role of "husband and father" as nothing more than a specialized beast of burden bred and trained for the purpose of dragging around an emotionally and financially dependent wife and family.
I once got into an argument with a woman over the question "If a woman goes into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties and later gets raped, did she 'ask for it'?" I looked at this woman and with all the scorn I could muster asked her if she was really incapable of seeing that if the woman had acted differently that she might have been able to have an impact on the results she experienced. Her position was so untenable that she eventually grudgingly conceded that yes, if the woman had acted differently she would likely have gotten different results. But, she ended with the typically female statement that she still believed that a woman "should" be able to go anywhere she "wants" and do whatever she "wants" and still never have anything bad happen to her. That is the most infantile position imaginable - to absolutely refuse to exercise any sense whatsoever on one's own behalf and demand that the entire world accomodate her regal narcissistic infantilism. People who do stupid things tend to get hurt, and is the natural process by which people used to learn not to be stupid.
This exchange represents the fundamental strategy of feminism and of women: to deny what power one really does have, to consistently refuse to exercise it, and to project blame for the results and responsibility for dealing with the consequences onto someone else. The last thing in the world I want to see happen is for men to give away what power they do have to the nanny state by emulating feminism and women.
I don't buy into the notion that men are unintelligent beasts ruled by their sex drives and incapable of practicing sexual restraint. If you look carefully, you will that that one idea is being exploited against men in dozens of ways from "sexual harassment" to "date rape." It is our greatest vulnerability, and I see c4m as playing right into it.
My entire point is that I DO have choices, and I DO have power - because I claim them and exercise them. I don't need a total change at the level of cultural values in order to be "empowered" - I already am. I don't expect the old "wimminandchildren first, after that, every man for himself" to change any time soon. Another fundamental fallacy of feminism is that cultural values like that were capriciously dreamed up by a cartel of men and imposed on everyone else. I believe that there a reasons for it which are imbedded in our fundamental biology and and our history and will not be changed in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children.
If we take the Titanic analogy, the "officers" are still shooting men to keep them out of the lifeboats so that wimminandchildren can be saved. And, the men who are waiting for that to change in order that they may survive will die while they are waiting. However, those men who are busy tearing up decking planks and lashing together a raft on their own are exercising real power and will survive.
The conservatives are more the enemies of men today than the liberals, because they are the ones who are trying to keep men trapped in their old roles despite the fact that everything in the culture which supported those roles has been destroyed. Like Gonzo said about the game of tug-of-war - nothing beats the strategy of letting go of the rope and letting your opponents fall on their asses. Women like that Susan twit are now trying to shame men into marriage, because it and children remain what most women want despite having lived their entire lives under the rule of the feminidiot party. Natural forces are at work which will inevitably bring about change. As they make more and more money, and have fewer anc fewer "choices" regarding "husband material", they are going to begin bearing more and more of the burdens of all these wonderful nanny state programs. No one has more contempt for the "breeders" than single, childless, successful professional women.
Personally, I believe that c4m is a complete non-starter. Fewer people support it than support same-sex marriage. I see it as mostly a waste of time, with the exception that it does provide some political bargaining leverage. If a man CHOOSES to support it, I will not waste my time or his arguing about it. But, I'm going to choose to spend my limited time and energy on things I believe are more effective - like tearing up decking planks and building my own raft, and knocking in the head anyone who tries to take it from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for me, I have to pretty much echo Zen's opinions. I long ago became an advocate of gender seperatism. I turned off the sperm production factory, and outside of my family and necessities imposed by work, I don't have a whole lot to do with anyone of the female gender unless I'm getting sex out of it.
I almost talked myself into trying to be gay. Which is the sole reason why I'm not in the "nurture" camp in toto. I still believe nurture is a factor, but I believe neither in nature or nuture as sole causative agents of homosexuality.
It's a digression, though. I've been given the pitying, "Oh, what a poverty for you" by many women. Let's see what I've lost.
Time? I don't waste time negotiating or accomodating ever changing pheminine whim.
Money? I budget my cash, and allow for the payment for services, whether outright or as part of the "Spend the money you're paying me on me" form of the transaction (Let's face it. ALL sex is prostitution, unless you're at an anonymous orgy. That goes for gay or straight. I just don't pretend and dress it up in flowers and lace.)
I don't argue about whether my favorite shirt gets thrown out.
I don't have my bathroom taken over by a truckload of Foo-foo crap.
I come and go as I please, and answer to nobody.
If I need to unload about the crock of shit life can be, my male buddies are happy to listen to me rant, then say, "Got it out of your system?" ("Yeah, I'm good now.")
No unknown money spent on frivolous sitabouts.
No Buying of a new set of dishes to replace a perfectly serviceable set of dishes.
I don't have to buy a pool to keep up with the neighbor, I just use his damn pool.
No being locked out of my own damn hosue for a fucking baby shower. No tupperware parties. No cackling hens and their disapproving glares at my tee-shirt and cutoffs.
If I want to drink from the OJ carton, I do.
If I want a beer on Saturday morning, I do.
So - what have I lost? I still get sex. Hell, I'm a "challenge."
And as for the question "If a woman goes into a bar wearing sexy clothes and no panties and later gets raped, did she 'ask for it'?" No. But she's a fucking idiot.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets say you hit another car while driving, denting the fender. The owner of that car has several ways to fix it. They can use one of several shops that will do the job for about $40, they can use the shop that's a little bit more convenient to their driving route and get it done for $400, or they can choose to buy a Ferrari.
Now, being that it is their car it is their choice, however you are only responsible for half of getting their car back to the shape it was in before the accident, (assuming said accident was 50% your fault and there was no other damage to your own car), and probably only at the more reasonable price of $40.
Now, they can choose to buy a Ferrari, and then decry that the dealership has a right to be paid, but that is hardly something you should be held accountable for.
Also, if their fender had actually been damaged by someone else prior to the accident but they claimed it was you anyway, that would be fraud and the courts would understand that they had done something illegal. Evidence of such fraud would certainly be admittable into the courtroom.
Finally, if this person you crashed into was in fact your mechanic, and they had lied about fixing the brakes on your car making you think it was safe to drive specifically for the purpose of getting you in an accident with them, not only would you not be liable for fixing their car, they would be guilting of willful endangerment.
I think the comparison here is obvious enough not to require much elaboration, however I should clarify that the $40 fee is analogous to the "morning after" pill, (which incidentally prevents the sperm from penetrating into the egg, thus is in fact a pre-conception method of BC which can be taken up to 3 days following the act), while the $400 option is analogous to abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 05, @09:42AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Men and women will be equal when:
WOMEN SERVE IN FRONTLINE, INFANTRY COMBAT
and
MEN HAVE CHOICE!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what we need a right to as well:
A vasectomy upon demand, with neither the consent or notification of women - Just like women now have for an abortion.
A male pill - again, available as "our own damn business."
Until then, gents, here's what I recommend:
At least every three weeks or so, a long, soaking, hot bath - as hot as you can stand it. This has been shown to lower the concentration of viable sperm.
Wear Briefs. Keep the twins warm, see above.
And for God's sake, use a condom.
I say we go on a fatherhood strike; let these women learn that we need to be consulted, and our rights secured or they are just not worth it.
I am, as always, a proud member of the sperm cartel. Of course, I've turned off the spigot at the production facility...
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo: "I'll tell you what we need a right to as well:
A vasectomy upon demand, with neither the consent or notification of women - Just like women now have for an abortion. "
I know that laws vary from state to state, and I have heard that married men need their wife's consent, but vasectomy on demand for a single man is already available in the state where I live, as well as several others that I know of. Most of the men I know, particularly the single ones, have changed themselves from production models to sport models.
I agree - a fatherhood strike is the best form of civil disobedience available to men right now. Several years ago I took several steps back and began to study the baffling phenomenon of why such an anti-reality ideology continued to spread despite the fact that it was obviously idiotic. The theories I developed to explain it were far too radical for most people, even hard core mens rights advocates.
What has ended up happening is that western culture has unintentionally embarked on the largest selective breeding experiment in history - driving men of high intelligence and/or low aggressiveness away from women and insuring that the future gene pool is selected purely on the basis of high aggression and in most cases combined with low intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 05, @12:20PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"I have heard that married men need their wife's consent"
everyone has heard this but it may be a myth. i went looking for laws in every state about men needing to consult their wives before having a vasectomy and could not find any state that had a law like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably this is like our illustrious surgeon general saying he doesn't prescribe birth control to unmarried women. There's some physician out there who is very concerned with his patients, who demands to hear from the wife before giving vasectomies. Probably isn't a state law or anything, but might have happened to a few men. Several people told my boyfriend there was NO physician that would give him a vasectomy until he was at least 30 or had had one child, and better two - that obviously isn't a state law, but he would more likely than not be told that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there's where you've hit it - even though many of these laws have been repealed, they still haven't repealed the civil liability. Sure, now you have no jail time for giving a man a vasectomy without wifey's okey-dokey. But she can still sue you.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW
I can go with that.
Expecting obvious counter attack in 3 2 1...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday July 05, @08:01PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support."
Clearly women have all the choices in this matter, even when a guy wants the child it's still her baby and her choice. That is not equal justice under the law for both parents.
I wonder how all the aborted babies would have voted about their abortions, their lives, if they had a say? Is there any thing America can do to make women more irresponsible than they already are? Can America give women any less responsibility for their actions?
All of the following items are not really choices for women are they: abortion, false allegations of domestic violence and or child abuse, custody of children when they want it, no accountability for lying, etc., etc., etc.? Those items, and more, reflect the fascism of, by, and for women, and thereby reflect the 2nd class slave status of men.
America, land of the free and home of the brave, HOGWASH! America has largely become the Feminazi States of America, until there is a restoration of the freedoms, listed by our Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution.
Like the voices of all the aborted babies, men are very silent about all this. They have little or no voice in a western world that values their lives, their rights, their choices far less than those of women. When men try to speak up and point out the atrocities of the past 30 years of the feminist agenda, foreign powers want to put us on a hate list and jail us. ...but we will not be silent.
On this day after the 4th of July I thank the Founding Fathers for what is left of the framework they left us to work peacefully through our government to make changes so all may know the fullness of freedom, men women and children. Let us work hard as we are playing catch up, and there is no guarantee that all free men will not some day be carted off to serve in some foreign countries' gulags.
Let Free Men Ring,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
I believe that Karen DeCrow was the NOW president way back in the ‘70’s, before NOW’s devotion to misandry was cemented in place, and I’m sure this quote embarrasses the current NOW regime.
But practically speaking they have the power to effectively suppress any voices that question their man hating religion - except of course, in certain sanctuaries of free thought like Mensactivism.org.
Our challenge is to break down the censorship that enables hypocrisy to rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, it was DeCrow who coined the term "Political Correctness" and was very clear on its use as a weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this was what converted me from feminism at 16 or there about. I'd become dissatisfied by radical feminists, after reading "The War Against Women" and thought that a lot of women were unreasonable in their attitudes towards men. I thought the mind games, the attitudes towards child rearing, the general demands of chivalry until they said were repulsive. I remember taking a survey that declared I wasn't a good, strong woman because I didn't have fantasies about castration and didn't feel that men were 'pets.' I was deemed irrevocably dependent upon men, doomed to heterosexuality and shackled to the oppressive patriarchy.
You woulda thunk that would've changed my mind somehow, but I simply resolved that many feminists were insane, but men simply had to avoid them and were probably fine.
So, I was cruising around Yahoo! groups, seeing if there were any women's groups that followed my viewpoints - something along the lines of actual equality - not hysterical ravings about evil men. I come across men's rights as a category. "what?? how can they be discussing rights?" I'm thinking, naively. That men had anything to fight for just seemed well, illogical - women were supposed to be oppressed still, right?
It astounded me by its logic. Choice For Men, I saw the group and visited their website, stood up and declared that logically, a woman had a great many choices and men had comparatively few in the regions of family planning. If I can be so independent as to choose the exact moment when I want to start my family, how could I deny every man the same choices? How would I feel if someone else had that kind of control of my fertility, and thereby, my future?
It was amazing, how could it be that the event of birth, and we'll go one step further, the event of motherhood, was a man's fault? That flew in the face of the whole idea of the independent, right-laden woman. And it made absolutely no sense - with SO MANY family planning options, available to MANY so easily [people were passing along condoms to me at 14!] how could any woman say that it was a man's fault? Did women have no responsibility?
Later reading reinforced my views, which is why you see me here today, but it was that introduction into a subject I held as important: The right for myself to choose when I wanted a family, and I forced myself to realize that men deserved the same respect, the same rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""""""""how could any woman say that it was a man's fault? Did women have no responsibility?"""""""""
Now that 'parental choice' after conception for women only has been the law of the land since 1973, men have as much responsibility of causing women to involuntarily become mothers as a chocolate devil's food cake has causing a woman to become involuntarily obese.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 06, @08:50PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! Reading your post really made my day. Thank you for thinking independantly! ^-^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""""""O'Reilly was calling men scum basically for not contributing to their children's lives."""""""""
What would be the Men's Movement equivalent of the Black Movement's version of a "Uncle Tom"?
This overrated O'Reilly jerk and other dimbulb male misandrists like him need to be labeled.
They are more harmful to our civil rights than the NOW sows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 06, @12:04PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Very true. Mens' worst enemies are those men who advocate the retention of the shackles of "traditional male conduct."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 06, @02:36PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
A few weeks ago Warren Farrell was on Sarborough Country, MSNBC, and Joe, unlike Oreilly was not rude. He did not interupt or Bully his guests either. It is nice to see a pundit who allows his guests to make their point. The only opinion that is allowed to be stated on Oreilly is Oreilly. After watching Oreilly for a very short time you get to know everything that is in his mind so every new episode is really just a rerun of the same old narrow opinions.
MEN'S ISSUES from the Oreilly perspective is that they don't exist, therefore from my perspective Bill Oreilly doesn't exist, except as an angry bad example of someone who could really use and anger management course.
Perhaps some day Oreilly will have Mike Tyson on and we can see two angry out of control guys go at it. What a low point in the history of manhood that would be. I can hear Oreilly shouting now as he's losing, "Cut off his mic, Cut off his mic." Sorry Bill you'll just have to bite it off if you want to keep up those ratings for unfair and unbalanced sensationalization of the news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 08, @12:40AM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Scarborough is consistently on target men's issues. This guy is amazing. Show after show he ask's the tough, unpopular questions. Just tonight he asked if a guy accused of rape at the air force academy was a victim of false accusation.
He's a conservative, but I don't care if he's Democrat, Libertarian, or Green Party. I'll watch anyone who tells the truth about what's happening to men in this country. It's about time. When are some liberals going to catch on with what's been happening to men? I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but these days I wouldn't vote for anyone from the man hating camp he comes from.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
