|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. Those guys are hard to kill off. Indeed, white men are ascendant in Red State America. I guess this means that the women folk will soon be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Now, where's my gun rack and Rebel flag. As my mom said, discussing her belief that Martha Stewart had been railroaded by jealous men, "If men could figure out how to have babies, they'd get rid of us altogether." And all this time, I thought ole Martha got convicted because she broke the law. I'd like to take a straw poll. How many men here are jealous of Martha, HANDS? How many men here have ever wanted to "figure out" how to have a baby? Well, speaking for myself, in all my 49 years I don't recall a single instance where I envied any woman when it came to giving birth. Hell, I'm a man, I know how to make a baby but I sure as hell don't care to deliver it. "I think we're still stuck in a society that looks at white males as authority figures," Mr. Brokaw conceded. COUGH COUGH SPUTTER COUGH. SAY WHAAAAT? I think he meant to say Doormats instead of "authority figures". The attitude still seems to be, 'We want a daddy in that chair.' " What, the electric chair? And then there's biology. Asked why there couldn't be an anchorette as we enter 2005, Mr. Brokaw, the father of three accomplished daughters and the husband of one strong, cool wife, Meredith, replied: "You know, honestly, what happens is career interruptus by childbirth and a couple of other things. It's unfair to women that they have to juggle all this stuff, but it plays some role, I think." There it is again. The deck is stacked against women. The system is unfair. I have a suggestion, forgo having children if it's going to put a cramp in your lifestyle. And now, the award for the most OUTRAGEOUS sentence in the entire article goes to: Even if I felt like raising a ruckus about Boys Nation, who would care? Feminism lasted for a nanosecond, but the backlash has lasted 30 years. My jaw is still agape and my ears are ringing. Could someone more eloquent than I please retort to this incredulous statement? Gentlemen, the rest of this article speaks for itself. I am reminiscent of a deer caught in headlights. I could go on but then I'd prefer to hear from the more erudite contributors on this sounding board .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:42 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if I felt like raising a ruckus about Boys Nation, who would care? Feminism lasted for a nanosecond, but the backlash has lasted 30 years.
The whole problem with feminism, and the reason it became radicalized within 8 years of its inception, is because it was NOT opposed. Any movement that faces little or no opposition will soon be taken over by its more radical elements. Hence, by 1971 mainstream feminists were already calling for a gender war.
The backlash is fairly recent; it's probably 30 overdue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:50 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Dowd is mostly good for her regular excretions of jaw-dropping stupidity courtesy of "the paper of record."
To quote -- "Even if I felt like raising a ruckus about Boys Nation, who would care? Feminism lasted for a nanosecond, but the backlash has lasted 30 years."
Apparently she's never spent any time in the U.S. Family Court system, where feminism's nasty anti-male climate is well-entrenched and will take at least a decade if not more to overturn.
If there's been a 30-year "backlash," against feminism, it's hardly made the news, and Gloria Alred would surely have been all over it like a 500-pound gorilla (sorry, that would be Andrea Dworkin), enjoying billable hours 24 x 7.
Truth is, the "backlash" that is represented by the men's right's movement is only just now learning to crawl, and talk.
Ms. Dowd ain't seen anything like the real backlash that's visible on the horizon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clancy, some ravings are just too ridiculous to dignify with a response. Maureen Dowd doesn’t have a monopoly on them but she writes waaaay more than her share.
The primary purpose of this kind of rant is as old as chivalry itself. By endlessly complaining about the handful of alpha males in high profile positions we can more easily justify treating the other 99% of men like dirt, and heap privilege on all women (because, after all, the network anchor is a man).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:04 AM December 3rd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"The primary purpose of this kind of rant is as old as chivalry itself. By endlessly complaining about the handful of alpha males in high profile positions we can more easily justify treating the other 99% of men like dirt, and heap privilege on all women (because, after all, the network anchor is a man)."
I read in "The War Against Men" the other day that the vast majority of people working in the media these days are female. So this is apparently another female dominated business except at the top. Perhaps Ms. Dowd shold go to FOX News were I see almost as many women on the air as men, and in high level positions.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And all this time, I thought ole Martha got convicted because she broke the law. I'd like to take a straw poll. How many men here are jealous of Martha, HANDS?
I was always envious of her capacity for creative though in terms of decorating freshly baked yams with an assortment of spices, fruits, and white-wine soaked briscuit. Her amazing ability to perfectly match a room's soul by use of feng-shui decor and creative paints has always impressed me, and the delightful, warm smile she displays is always soothing and helps one concentrate on her baking directions.
It's a good thing.
...
...
What?
Besides, I thought the "stay in the kitchen" 50's attitude of Martha was degrading the quality of the Women's Reich... MOVEMENT, I said MOVEMENT... now that she's under fire for doing something wrong, it's the man's fault.
My jaw is still agape and my ears are ringing.
Didn't you hear? Back in the 60s, people started using logic instead of emotionally-fueled extremism. There is no such thing as the phrase "the glass ceiling", no Affirmative Action, and people are tried equally and fairly despite gender (among lost of others). This site is superflous.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let MS. Dowd read it too!
Her e-mail is:
liberties@nytimes.com
I doubt if she will respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:52 AM December 3rd, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Like the time worn relic of a by gone era this fossilized artifact of an opinion from an irrelevant ideology leaps upon modern men and women with an exuberance that is truly anachronistic.
It is as if Rumple Dowdskin has fallen asleep for 30 years and awoken to find that not only do the majority of people find her radical/gender feminism a farce, they flat out reject and despise the addled thinking that has destroyed the lives of so many good men and women like a Tyrannosaurus-Rex that has been rampaging through a China shop.
Once upon a time the myth of radical/gender feminism held sway with the American public, and serious students of social construction, but for modern Homo Sapiens that Triceratops of a concept, banging its gnarly head against the doorway of humankind, is going the way of all dinosaurs.
One would expect a columnist with the self-acclaimed erudition of a Maureen Dowd to be logical enough to see the writing on the wall, but then as we all know, logic has never been a desirable part of Dowd’s misandrist stereotyping hokum. Her column leaves little doubt, that it is a lack of logic and common sense that will eventually play a significant part in the impending demise of her “pop culture” pseudo-scientific blather. One can only hope that the extinction of her Mammoth distortions of human kind will be a complete end to the of radical/gender feminist ice age that has held so many human relations in its icy frozen grip.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:20 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"If men could figure out how to have babies, they'd get rid of us altogether."
We might if mothers keep insisting on having their sons circumcised. Fathers do this to their sons also, but there's a better possibility they can be reformed, since many of them resent being knifed by pedophiles. That leaves mothers to deal with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:06 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I'm a "minority", I, too, resent this attitude of "we MUST get rid of the White male and replace him with a black or a woman or better yet a black woman."
Why? What the hell? I thought if some one, no matter WHO they are what gender they are , what race or color they are, can do the job THAT'S the person you get to do it.
But then that would be REAL equality, and there are those who DON'T want that. They SAY they want equality but then say stuff like; "We must get rid of the white male". Uh, HELLO. With TRUE EQUALITY we don't "get rid" of ANYBODY!! ALL are treated..., well, EQUALY!
God! It's not like it's a real hard concept to grasp. Even I can figure it out and I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree.
By the way if they were truely for REAL equality, we'd hear about the fact that there aren't enough INDIANS on TV. They complain when too few Blacks, Women and Gays aren't featured, but say nothing about Indians (or Asians for that matter). Hey, name me a Black sitcom. Where to start, huh? Name me a sitcom about women. Too many, right. Hispanic sitcom? at least one or two. Now name me ONE Indian sitcom. Name me ONE show, particularly on network TV, that has ONE leading Indian character. Name me ONE Indian news anchor. What? few? or more like NONE?
That's right.
So if these door knobs really cared about REAL EQUALITY not only would we hear some outcry about the lack of Indian and Asian representation in the media, we would also NOT hear the calls for eliminating the "white male".
NO ONE is eliminated when TRUE equality is being honestly practiced. With TRUE EQUALITY we ALL SHARE in the blessings. ALL OF US!!
A concept that feminists and other hate-mongers out there appearantly can not grasp.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If men could figure out how to have babies, they'd get rid of us altogether."
Oh please. Some men unfortunately are so pussy-whipped by feminists and women that they wouldn't even dream of it. Now reproductive equality among one of the many rights that men want. We have sperm banks for women. What ever happen to all of those studies and the possible construction of artificial wombs for men who want to have children without the hassle of putting up with a surrogate mother (or women all together)? Women are donating their eggs as men are donating their sperm. Some men want to be fathers without having to put up with the hassle of woman and vice-versa with women. That doesn't mean that men would get rid of women should artificial wombs and egg banks come into availability as sperm banks are. Oh but there are plenty of women who say 'let's get rid of men now that we have sperm banks', do I smell feminazi bigotry and hypocrisy? I think so. Sounds like a couple of hysterical feminists talking, as usual.
Believe me guys. I don't want my eggs, that's why I'm donating them. Maybe by the time I do, men will have more reproductive freedoms and options in procreation without even having to deal with a surrogate mother, as women no longer physically (as in relational or asking a guy for his sperm) need a man in order to become a parent. A little reproductive and parental equality, options and freedom would be nice and not to mention it's over do for men who want to become independent single fathers.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:16 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Ectogenesis is not the answer, and should it become real one day, it would probably be outlawed (as human reproductive cloning is also going to be).
The real answer is the male pregnancy. Some experts even say that it is already feasible, and of course it will be a by-word for better rights for fathers and boys, no woman will interfere any more.
As far as eggs are concerned, you can produce male eggs through therapeutic cloning (the feat has already been achieved in male mouses), therefore making possible a 50/50 child between two gay men.
Male pregnancy really will be the great scientific breakthrough that men's and fathers' rights activists have been expecting for so many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM December 2nd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
On the subject of artificial uteri, the article in the link below suggests it may be possible in a few years.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,648024,00.html
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:56 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
When the artificial womb finaly hits mainstream, then and ONLY then will I become a dad.
An artificial womb doesn't rip you off in divorce court, and stuff.
I've always wanted to be a dad (boy or girl, it doesn't matter to me) And this will be my chance.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:23 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
So you will never be a father.
No one of us will see artificial wombs in our lifetime.
But still, your dream might come true in the end : go to california, hire a surrogate mother, and you can become a dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:24 AM December 5th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"No one of us will see artificial wombs in our lifetime"
Yes, we will.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:55 AM December 5th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Even in that case, artificial wombs would be legally banned at once. The only way to become independent from women for the reproduction of our gender is the human male pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:08 AM December 5th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
At present, artificial wombs are illegal. The feminists are desparate to keep them so. The fertilised egg is now routinely developed into the embryo stage outside the uterus on artificial media. The embryos thrive outside the uterus. However, legally, they must be killed when they reach a certain stage of development (at 2 weeks, I think).
The main obstacle to the development of artificial uteri is feminist opposition to the research and funding need for their development. I believe that ,in a few years, the feminist opposition will be overcome or simply bypassed. Once we reach that stage, we should have fully operational artificial uteri within a decade.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:17 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"To a very large extent, artificial wombs will set men free"
Agreed. Their development would break the monopoly in reproductive rights which women have enjoyed since the invention of artificial contraceptives and legalisation of abortion.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:30 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care how much it costs, I will save up the money I need, one way or another. And which ever country HAS the artifical womb legalized THAT is where I will go.
As far as highering a surrogate mother in California goes, I feel kind of creepy doing that. And I have to wonder if there is a risk there. But it IS a thought.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:31 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud,
I didn't mean to sound arrogant on this issue. But if you really want to become a father, you must take reality, and not MRAs'dreams, into consideration, and the sad reality today is as follows : there are no artificial wombs, and it is very likely there won't be artificial wombs in the next 50 years.
The only way forward is the male pregnancy OR the hiring of a surrogate. In case you hire a surrogate, just check this isn't her first pregnancy, otherwise she could try to keep the baby to her after delivering.
With a surrogate mother who has already given birth many times, this kind of risk will almost fade away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 PM December 5th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
> At present, artificial wombs are illegal. The feminists are desparate to keep them so. The fertilised egg is now routinely developed into the embryo stage outside the uterus on artificial media. The embryos thrive outside the uterus. However, legally, they must be killed when they reach a certain stage of development (at 2 weeks, I think).
Correct. But you're wrong when you state that all feminists want to prevent the development of artificial wombs. Some do, others don't. To some feminists, it will be a way to set women free from the cycle of reproduction, enabling them to compete with men on a equal footing in the corporate world, without being held back by the maternity retirement.
But of course, to the man-hating dykes, articifial wombs and male pregnancy do represent a real threat, because women would lose the control of baby boys' birth, raising and education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Dowd is her own worst enemy. She spews invective at otherwise decent people like Tom Brokaw (any politics aside, name me anything he has done that has been scandalous or unacceptable in terms of behavior, other than of course being male, white in particular). Then she goes to attack "red states" as if "red states" are immune from feminist influence.
As long as she keeps writing stuff like this, she keeps sounding more dumb, mean, and bullyish, making yet more enemies, and otherwise hindering her own cause. What that cause is, well, I am guessing it has something to do with feminism, though sometimes it's hard to tell; like certain other of her commentator-sisters out there, it's quite hard at times to follow her train of thought!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As my mom said, discussing her belief that Martha Stewart had been railroaded by jealous men
Hmmm..just as I have suspected! Being a misandric asshole is possibly hereditary.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
