|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:46 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Women have been rooting out fetuses with sticks for thousands of yars. Certainly abortion is one factor, but I don't think it's as strong as the fact that marriage is fundamentally unattractive to so many men. They know they have zero control over their genetic code once it gets into the woman's uterus. Want the kid to be born but she doesn't? Too bad. Don't want the kid to be born but she does? Also too bad. BTW she gets vaginamony if you leave, and child support if you were foolhardy enough to knock her up, and with presumptive female custody, good luck being a meaningful part of your kids' lives. All she has to do is tell a sob story about how you hit her or the children, and even if you haven't, she can get the judge to exclude you from ever seeing your offspring.
A rather loaded pair of dice if you happen to be male, in my opinion.
It isn't like fifty years ago, when society actively encouraged people to get and stay married. These days, if you are a man, it is like being asked to thrust your hand into a pit of starving, angry vipers because there MAY be a bag of silver at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, Russia has never really faired well throughout history, even when they were popping out babies left and right due to their strict religious views (ie: Orthodox Church).
But I digress......Once again, this sounds like Conservative Christian Right rhetoric (aka: the rigid Puritanical, so called "Traditional/Family Values shit that teaches homophobia, 'sex is evil', chivalry, and that "men are morally inferior sex-driven neanderthals and women are morally superior so men should pamper and cater to them and fuck you and your desires, be a man") that pushes people, especially young men desperate to escape the fates of their ill-fated fathers, into unwanted parenthoods and marriages.
So is the solution to all of our economic problems is have litters of babies yet again? Well how original. And where oh where will all of the money to finance such this "miraculous" baby-boom come from? Those little spawns won't become productive until they are at least 15, and even then it's just retail. Will we have to do more deforestation and land development in order to build more houses, roads, McDonalds (heaven forbid we forget to build a McDonalds) for these happy-go-lucky suburbanites, that will only ADD to our pollution and evironmental problems?
And don't forget our failing public schools! Yep, those will prepare the little spawns for life just nicely! Oh but popping out litters of children should fix that immediately, right?
You know, India has tons of kids, is their economy doing any better? Oh but at least they have nuclear families, right?
Yeah, and even if mothers of five still manage to work outside of the home after maternity leave, lest we forget our 'fabulous' and 'cheap' daycare and nanny institutions.
Now let's roll out the 'blame it on the birth control/contraceptives and abortion' routines. When birth control/contraceptives and abortion were STOLEN BY FEMINISM!!! Feminism stealing...what a shock. Thank you Christina Hoff-Summers for clearing that up. Those ever so evil pills, condoms, patches, IUD's, and surgical vacuums prevent us from becoming like China, Mexico, and India (and preventing some men from becoming unplanned fathers). Or should we all take up Catholicism and have seven to nine kids? Gee, won't that help push father's rights. Yep, let's put more pressure on men to become the sole breadwinner and beast of burden. And imagine how much fun he'll have when his wife divorces him and he has FOUR TO EIGHT KIDS TO PAY FOR AND A VINDICTIVE BITCH OF A WIFE WHO WANTS MORE ALIMONY!!
PLEASE!!!! Popping out a bunch of kids and getting rid of all birth control/contraceptives and abortions won't make economic problems and feminism go away. And they sure as HELL won't help men.
The feminists can say that men had all of the power and privelege back in the 'Leave It To Beaver' fifties, but I talked to my grandfathers before, and they said that it was NO FUN OR PRIVELEGE! Having to be solely responsible for bringing home the paycheck for a wife and five to seven kids was no fun in the park for them.
And I don't know about you, but who the hell would want to raise a child in a place like Russia? They have a myriad of problems surrounding their political stability, economy, military (that treats its young men like shit and turns them into body-bags), and medical issues that need to be solved first before they start mass-procreation again.
Why the hell would any man put him in a more dangerous legal and financial position as having more children and getting married for the sake of procreation? Having kids with someone won't make them love and respect you automatically. Just look at the way wives swindle their husbands out of money and parental rights. And kids don't always keep a marriage together, even if there are six kids.
Sorry, but this whole "pop out some babies and all of our economic, social, and marital problems will magically disappear" just sounds like shit. None of this will change my mind about my reproductive and 'zero-children for me' policy. And a lot of men and boys who have seen the damage done by the divorce industry and the paternity fraud industry won't buy into this either.
Having more kids and getting married when feminism is still very dominant and controlling over men's lives, and expect feminists and women to magically change their views? Why don't you just ask guys to frolic through a field filled with land mines? Women and feminists won't magically change their agenda if you ask them to have more kids with you. People, the social dynamics, and the economy won't magically change if you start popping out kids. And Russia with issues? Tell me something I don't know, like how much voltage can the neurons in one's brain can produce? That would be an interesting fact to know.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:34 AM December 7th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"You know, Russia has never really faired well throughout history..."
I noticed that too. It has been a terrible place to live for a very, very long time. For whatever reason those people have had more than their share of misery.
"...who the hell would want to raise a child in a place like Russia?"
Russia has a long history of terrible social chaos, and great human suffering. If sexual desire weren't such a strong human motivation, leading to procreation, Russia would already be a vast uninhabited wasteland. It is not by accident that Russia has one of the gravest alcoholism problems in the world. Self-medication via the Vodka makes life tolerable. If life is so miserable that you have to stay drunk all the time, why would you want to bring another human being into the same existence, then witness them experience the same unhappiness you have.
Maybe the vast majority of Russians are waiting to find happiness and security in their own lives before considering bringing another human life into the world to share what they have.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, this sounds like Conservative Christian Right rhetoric (aka: the rigid Puritanical, so called "Traditional/Family Values shit that teaches homophobia, 'sex is evil', chivalry, and that "men are morally inferior sex-driven neanderthals and women are morally superior so men should pamper and cater to them and fuck you and your desires, be a man") that pushes people, especially young men desperate to escape the fates of their ill-fated fathers, into unwanted parenthoods and marriages.
Why the hell would any man put himself in a more dangerous legal and financial position as having more children and getting married for the sake of procreation?
Having more kids and getting married when feminism is still very dominant and controlling over men's lives, and expect feminists and women to magically change their views? Why don't you just ask guys to frolic through a field filled with land mines? Women and feminists won't magically change their agenda if you ask them to have more kids with you. People, the social dynamics, and the economy won't magically change if you start popping out kids.
GREAT rant, thea! You hit all the high points of a profound sea change of cultural values which I believe is permanent. Feminists and the religious right have always been in bed together because they both hold the same view of men - that we are base creatures whose only purpose in life is to become specialized beasts of burden to drag around financially and emotionally dependent wives and families.
While I have tremedous sympathy for the Dad's Rights guys - they are the ones who have really been stiffed by this whole cultural nightmare, doing what it took to sustain the culture and allow it to survive - the "privilege" of fatherhood has become something that men have to beg for and buy from women and the government. The subtle pleasures of working their asses off only to have cupcake complain endlessly about them and run them down every chance she gets - only one 911 call away from jail, losing everything they have worked for, and/or complete destruction of social reputation and livelihood - escapes a lot of men these days.
There is a great article several places on the web titled "The Death of Marriage in Scandinavia." It points out the inevitable course of socialism. As the economic benefits of having children begin to get confiscated and redistributed to the society as whole, the costs remain on the parents until cultural institutions like state-supported daycare are developed. When parents bear all the costs, and get no more of the benefits than anyone else, a lot of people choose the option to let other people have and pay for the kids.
I maintain that if conservatives were so damn concerned about "saving marriage" that they are now about 20 years too late in holding back the tide of anti-father anti-male law and attitudes. Supposedly, women and the culture want men to get married and support their families to some degree, yet they punish a male from the moment he agrees to do so. I saw an interesing factoid the other day to the effect that the number of people who agree with the statement "fathers are important" is down to 18%. When 82% of a population believes there is no value to a role, refuses to reward it in any way, and in fact punishes any man foolish enough to try it, that degree of social momentum is not going to do a 180 and suddenly reverse itself.
The kids coming out of the socialist indoctrination institutions of today, masquerading as "education", have a fundamentally different value system - that has been the entire purpose of infiltrating and taking over education. These kids have absorbed all the anti-male, anti-father, propaganda, and believe it. The attitude that feminidiocy has instilled in women of not needing a man for anything (except those very valuable wallets that some men still have) and that doing ANYTHING kind or "nice" for a man is participating in "patriarchal oppression" and puts her on a slippery slope which will almost instantly lead to her being locked in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, has produced two and now a third generations of women who have nothing to offer a man other than sex. The general sluttishness which has become so common in the culture reflects this.
Restricting access to birth control, or even abortions, is not going to reverse this trend. Thomas pointed out in another thread the current conditions for black males. And, someone (perhaps also Thomas) mentioned the number of economically successful black females they saw these days. But, if you look at the census figures regarding marriage, currently 42.8% of all women are unmarried. However, there is a huge racial divide - 40.7% of white females are unmarried, while 57.6% of black females are.
As long as fatherlessness and welfare dependency were confined to a minority population, the majority could still absorb the financial burden. However, when that trend moves into the majority,the pyramid of producers to consumers becomes inverted and the costs of the welfare state start threatening to consume all production. We end up with a huge Tragedy of the Commons
I completely agree with you, thea, that the methods currently being tried to reverse these trends are completely useless. Women today are grabbing everything they can get, without giving any thought at all to the fact that they are stealing it from their daughters, granddaughters, and great-grandaughters. I believe that only when those females start having to pay the price, will we ever see lawmakers wake up and realize that they have to put something back on the plate for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am the Divorced Non-Custodial Father of 5. Was a member of a conservative Religious group. Wife did as she pleased, asked for the Divorce, got the house, our savings, and the kids. Oldest two are no married and parents themselves. I live several states away from them. Second wife enjoys a steady diet of Oxygen, and Lifetime Entertainment for Women. Is to indoctrinated to see that she is brain washing herself. As much as I love my kids. If I had to do it over again. I would not. Being a wage slave for an ungrateful female who whines constantly is bull Sh**. At 48 I no longer have the gnawing sex drive I did in my 20s. Treat me good or go away. My solution is to stop dating, breeding, marrying, or catering to Women for 2 years. That will drive home the message to the Dumb Shits in Government that we Men are tired of the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:17 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
This may come as a suprise to many, but even though I'm a democrat I am very much against abortion. (Sorry Thea)
Phaedra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This may come as a suprise to many, but even though I'm a democrat I am very much against abortion. (Sorry Thea)"
Um....okay, hooray for you. No apologies needed. And I'm still very much pro-abortion rights and working for equal reproductive rights for men. I enjoy my right to choose (though I've never been pregnant, nor sexually active) and I believe men should have the right to control what happens to their genetic material. Excluding forced abortions though, men can have equal reproduction rights without forcing abortions. ChoiceforMen.com explains that. The problem here is reproduction rights and custodial issues, not abortion and contraceptives/birth control. Who the state decides has more control over their reproduction is the problem here. Men have ZERO control over what happens to their genetic material according to the State. Which needs to be changed.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote about this elsewhere, but I want to emphasize it.
zenpriest wrote:
there is a huge racial divide - 40.7% of white females are unmarried, while 57.6% of black females are.
We should note that among whites, the college population is about 57% female and 43% male. In other words, females outnumber males by a factor of 1.33. In the black community, the college population is about 67% female and 33% male. In other words, black females outnumber black males by a factor of 2. The gap among blacks is 1.5 times as great as gap among whites.
Well, the percentage of unmarried black females is just about 1.5 times the percentage of unmarried white females. This is part back of the envelope calculation and part handwaving, but let's not kid ourselves. There is a strong correlation here.
When revisionist feminists claim that women will take good care of men, when women have most of the educations and good jobs, they are being delusional or they are simply stating what they know isn't true. Men need to brace themselves for an obvious reason: When men had most of the educations and good-paying jobs, men provided for women and their children; when women have most of the educations and good paying jobs, they ditch men.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When men had most of the educations and good-paying jobs, men provided for women and their children; when women have most of the educations and good paying jobs, they ditch men.
and children. There is a substantial and rapidly growing body of evidence that the minimal interaction which children have in daycare has very negative long-term effects on them emotionally and socially. Of course, the feminasties are ruthlessly attempting to suppress this, just like they have the research on real DV figures or the effects of father absence.
As you said, men need to brace themselves, and I think the most significant way that needs to happen is to finally destroy the feminine mystique and the cult of female moral superiority. I have maintained for a long time that the underlying meaning of the Genesis myth is just what we are seeing today as women hide the most monstrous forms of evil behind the mask of inherent morality - "Eve" certainly does think she has eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (moral superiority) and it convinced her that all women are good, all men are evil, and if anything goes wrong it is always a male's fault. AND a lot of dim "Adams" have eaten this bull-hockey out of their hands, and as a result are truly dying.
The difficulty for MRAs is that for the near-term, any attempt to pull aside the cloak behind which women hide their evil will be fought with accusations of "misogyny" and "hating women." As I remarked on another forum, it is exactly the opposite - the men most clear and pointed in their criticism are those who have had the chance to know some very wonderful women and to realize that the skanks so prevalent today share nothing more with those women than their internal plumbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When men had most of the educations and good-paying jobs, men provided for women and their children; when women have most of the educations and good paying jobs, they ditch men.
This is a very important point that is usually ignored. I’ve challenged lots of people who think that today’s greater educational level and often higher income level of women is just a turning of the tables from the 50’s and 60’s. Not even close. These women, by and large, use their money and influence to benefit #1 and ditch the old man without reservations. Feminism demonizes men for doing that and in the next breath give the old “you go grrrrrrl” to women who do it. Feminism has destroyed the complementary relationship that once existed between men and women. Unapologetic parasites abound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:13 PM December 6th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
================================================== ===========================
"The U.S. Census Bureau projects a Russian population decline of 19 million from 2000 to 2025." "Russia's population loss is caused by "remarkably low birthrates" and "terrifyingly high death rates," the NBR report said."
================================================== ===========================
While there is no denying that Chernobyl was a significant contributing factor. It can in no way be said that Chernobyl is soley responsible for this massive population decline. It appears that the original home of the "Nanny State" is reaping the fruits of its efforts to "be the family."
================================================== ===========================
"This demographic transition is characteristic of industrial and industrializing nations and usually is associated with greater numbers of women joining the work force and rising divorce rates, both of which tend to reduce family size. Similar patterns have emerged in the United States and other Western countries."
================================================== ===========================
Sure, biology is all a social construction according to the gender feminists, and gender should be soically constructed. Child bearing is oppresive and keep's women from earning big bucks in the factory, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum...
Perhaps instead of requiring women's studies majors to take women's studies 101 as a begining class, we could just have them take Lemming's Studies 101 instead.
Women's Studies Sabotages Traditional Families
Women's Studies Should Stop Conspiring to Sabatoge Heterosexual Families
Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we are in dire economic circumstances as a result of this, if you want to talk to one of the people who are most responsible for causing our collapse, look for a Women's Studies professor.
But women in Russia are having abortions because of dire economic factors, not because they've been indoctrinated into having abortions by women's studies professors.
Italy is an interesting example because the women there are not anti-male, as are a high percentage of women in the US. Yet, the Italian fertility rate is one of the lowest in Europe. The reason is that more Italian women are becoming educated and involved in professional life rather than traditional family life. As everywhere in the West, they often choose abortion to save their careers. This also has little to do with feminism.
In the US, there is so much pressure to achieve a high level of materialistic success that educated people of both genders are delaying having children for 10 to 15 years past what used to be considered the "normal" age for procreation. By that time, a lot of them have only one child, or none at all. I think feminism has contributed to the decline of the family by making divorce very attractive to women, and by encouraging the denigration of males. Feminist "empowerment" (read that as selfishness and anger) has also created a large pool of women destined to be forever dysfunctional in relationships with men.
Clearly, the world population cannot simply increase forever. Rather, nations with very high fertility rates should raise the education levels of their populations to that they become productive in ways other than makings lots of babies. Until this happens, we (the US, Canada, and Europe) will experience cultural displacement as immigrants flood in unabated. We have to continue to defend our rights and our cultural identity, or they will erode away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have the time right now to write at length, but I want to make a few comments.
I wrote:
When we are in dire economic circumstances as a result of this, if you want to talk to one of the people who are most responsible for causing our collapse, look for a Women's Studies professor.
TLE responded:
But women in Russia are having abortions because of dire economic factors, not because they've been indoctrinated into having abortions by women's studies professors.
I wrote, "When we are in dire economic circumstances as a result of this..."
As far as the fact that the earth can't sustain an infinite population of humans, that's obvious. The reason we are in trouble is because we (the developed world) have rapidly switched from population growth to population collapse without any reasonable adjustments in the structure of our economies. We are already to the point where, to be successful, adjustments will have to be extreme and will result in great hardships. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to correct the mess. And even if we do adjust our economies to deal with population collapse, we will be overrun through sheer force of numbers by cultures that are reproducing at above the replacement rate.
The collapse in population has occurred in large part because, in addition to becoming better educated, women have gained access to relatively cheap and safe abortion and birth control. And feminism has brought about the denigration of motherhood as well as the destruction of the family through the removal of fathers.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The collapse in population has occurred in large part because, in addition to becoming better educated, women have gained access to relatively cheap and safe abortion and birth control. And feminism has brought about the denigration of motherhood as well as the destruction of the family through the removal of fathers.
I think the 2nd of these factors is far more significant than the first. Unfortunately, MRAs are all over the board politically, so it is difficult for those with more traditional views to be able to find common ground with men who hold less traditional views. There were certainly plenty of men in the armies of the sexual revolution who thought birth control was great and welcomed the chance for casual sex with as many willing women as they ran across. Plus, even married couples used birth control for the same reasons men on this site often complain about - the costs of raising children.
I may be a naive idealist, but I think men and women would have been able to sort things out over time and adjust to the change in social values and patterns, had it not been for the hatred of men spread by the lesbian contingent of feminidiots. It has been pretty much the same dynamic as a mob - the feminasties appealed to the normal frustrations of sharing a life with someone, and pumped up women's outrage and sense of victimhood to the point where they were so angry at men in general that they were ready to verbally and emotionally lynch them - in many cases their own sons, brothers, fathers, and husbands.
I think there are many respects in which the traditionalists are partly responsible for the strength of the feminist movement. Talk about any group of people needing to "be controlled" is deeply disturbing and offensive to those of us with a Libertarian bent, and gave a backhanded sort of credibility to the accusations of the feminidiots.
While I agree with your assessment of the fact that the shift will be so sudden that it will have catastrophic results, I disbelieve in the effectiveness of social planning so strongly that I don't think masses of people have ever functioned any other way, and are likely incapable of functioning any other way. I think it is simply impossible to have done anything to cushion the blow, and in terms of social learning I think it probably would have actually been worse for the human race because it would allow them to continue to escape an awareness of how significant the consequences are going to be. Many cultures have died out in the past, for one or more of only a handfull of reasons which keep cropping up in the behavior patters of large groups of people. It makes me believe more and more in Issac Asimov's concept of "psychohistory."
Birth control is simply the converse of death control, what we call modern medicine. When the human race began to exhibit the hubris to believe it could control its own fate, the number of weak and defectives which were allowed to live had to be offset by an equal number of potentially whole individuals who were not allowed to be born. It was a moral dilemma so deeply embedded in the action itself that it was inescapable.
The loss of our culture, or being overrun by cultures which breed more, doesn't upset me much. While there are some values and ideals to which I am passionately committed, the ability to provide several hundred different Spongebob Squarepants products and to produce entertainment such as "Desperate Housewives" is not among them, yet they are equally products of the culture.
My parents were of the Depression era, and they told stories like a weekly penny-ante poker game that their circle of friends had. They budgeted themselves $1.00 per week that they could lose, and on those occasions when their luck ran bad and they got carried away with the game, they had to make adjustments in their food budget. Yet, they survived it - and I don't think it compromised their quality as people in any way. In fact, I liked and trusted most of the people I knew of their age a whole lot more than I like and trust people my own age and younger.
My belief is that there is no way to head off the coming collapse, so the best thing to do is to start intelligently preparing to survive it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Russia and the Russian people have a national trait of being able to endure enormous hardships and survive. Who would have thought just a few decades ago that the communists would no longer be in power? Remember the huge losses in people and resources Russia lost in WW 2 and then emerge as a major world power and an early leader in the post war space race.
Do not fall for the notion that Russia has had it. Russia has been buried many times thoughout history and has risen from the grave...just as Napolean about the Russian will to survive.
I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. quote by Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill in a radio broadcast
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Russia will be fine... it's just that they're still reaping the bitter fruit of their ill concieved social experiment (one that some in this country seem hell bent on repeating). They have and will continue to go through some very tough times, but they're a giant country with vast natural resources, well educated and resiliant citizens... they'll survive and eventually thrive.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:03 AM December 11th, 2004 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
now they're getting pillaged western style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It occurs to me, gender politics aside, that a step-function decrease in world population would be the... "best" answer to this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank, that would be a great solution, especially in extremely crowded countries like Japan (where I live).
The problem is that semi-socialist states all over the world have introduced mandatory national pension plans, and if your generation is smaller than the one before you, you'll be paying through the nose to support your greedy elders. Don't think they'll be willing to accept smaller pensions so that you don't have to suffer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, what I was thinking was, as cruel and bloodthirsty as this may seem... If you look at how the global economy works, you will realize that it's a growth engine. In other words, in order for today's populace to be served, there needs to be a mortgaging of the present with the assumption that the increased revenues to be gained in the future will cover the deficit. We pay the deficit through interest, in the case of loans, or dividends in the case of stocks. The current generation always relies on the increased population, and thereby the increased demand, of the next generation. It's always assumed that the next generation will be larger, and be larger by enough to generate enough demand to pay the interest.
I'm not a real smart guy, but I just can't think of an economic model that works in a declining population. Socialism attempts to distribute the wealth equally, which might be fair, but it's still a growth engine. Instead of the wealth being distributed by private enterprise, it's distributed by government. And since there's no incentive for excellence, and therefore surplus, it's a sub-optimized growth engine. It will fail sooner than a capitalist system in terms of surviving population recession.
Growth has been slowing because population growth is slowing. If you were just to take say 20% of the population off the earth, say over the next twenty years, for example, and leave the natural resources in place (not contaminating them chemically, biologically, or atomically), you would essentially 'reset' the growth engine and it would be able to sustain the remaining population, for awhile. You'd have to do the same thing again a few years down the road.
Now, in some ways, that's a pretty sick thought. It's almost like suggesting murdering about 1.3 billion people uniformly across the globe. On the other hand, wars and disease used to take care of this for us, until diplomacy and bio-sciences took over.
One could suggest that we have, as a species, outsmarted ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kyo wrote:
The problem is that semi-socialist states all over the world have introduced mandatory national pension plans, and if your generation is smaller than the one before you, you'll be paying through the nose to support your greedy elders. Don't think they'll be willing to accept smaller pensions so that you don't have to suffer!
It's good to hear from someone in Japan. It seems that Japan is already in a state of economic malaise as a result of population ageing, and population collapse hasn't even started yet.
I'd love to read your take on what I'm about to write. Many economists, in the US at least, have for years blamed Japan's economic downturn on cronyism and corruption. But when they take a close look, many now state that there was as much cronyism and corruption during boom times as there is now. A number of economists are now making correlations between the economic downturn and population ageing. It seems there is a strong connection.
Your point about the elderly not wanting to accept smaller pensions is an important and troubling one. The road out, short of revolution, will require in part drastic reductions in pensions, dramatic hikes in payroll taxes (in the US, deductions for Social Security, for example), or a combination of the two. The problem is that the elderly won't care to see their pensions reduced and they are a large and increasing percentage of the electorate. If we wait too long to take action, then deep and extreme action will be required to correct the problem that we've created. A possible dilemma that I foresee is that, when people who are well into middle-age or are elderly become the majority of voters, they simply won't vote to carry much if any of the increased and terrible burden. And young adults won't care to have their standards of living collapse, so that the elderly can live in comfort despite the mess they've created. There may be no democratic way out of the morass.
As a friend of mine, who is in his mid-30s, metaphorically states, "Young adults are going to hit control-alt-delete."
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In Russia, feminism's highest sacrament -- abortion -- is especially to blame."
No it's not, or do you think these women would happily bear children if one would outlaw abortion, and everything would be OK again? Many pregnant women would kill themselves, try to somehow kill the child or would have to raise it under terrible circumstances. This discussion has already taken place decades ago, and the results are unmistakable.
This ultra-conservative and, yes, mysoginist nonsene really bothers me. It does not help conveying the message of equal rights for both sexes. It drives away liberal people who want more rights for men instead of less rights for women.
The evil women's studies professors who turn women into evil baby killers - give me a break!
Abortion is legal here in Germany until the 15th week after conception although counseling is required. And it's GOOD that way. What's missing is taking the father into account, he should at least be informed and take part in the counseling session.
I really wish I didn't have to read "news" items with Christian fundamentalist rants attached to them on all these American men's rights sites. Makes me wonder if I support the right side. And it "taints" the source and makes it hard to utilize it for discussions here, because the vast majority of people at least in Europe turns away immediately if someone calls for bans on abortion or says that women need "strong leadership by a man" (found on dvmen.org, what the hell were they thinking)? And rightly so!
My father is an immigrant, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In Russia, feminism's highest sacrament -- abortion -- is especially to blame."
No it's not, or do you think these women would happily bear children if one would outlaw abortion, and everything would be OK again?
Yes, abortion is to blame. I've read elsewhere that, in Russia, for every birth there are now 7 abortions. (Research it yourself.) They are aborting themselves out of existence, and it is not misogynist nonsense to point out that fact. I believe that abortion is acceptable during the first 8 or so weeks of the fetus' life. I don't, however, fall for nonsense that all abortions are carried out by women who can't provide for the children. A great many abortions are carried out by women, who could well care for the child but who don't want to be bothered.
The fact is population ageing and collapse are destroying the developed world. Population collapse is a direct result of the destruction of male-female relations as well as the claim that women never bear any responsibility whatsoever when they create a fetus.
I've never called for a ban on abortion, so you can give up on any insinuations to that effect. As for the current attitudes of Europeans, well, you're destroying yourselves through population ageing and collapse at an astounding rate. If you don't overhaul your attitudes, you're dead.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read elsewhere that, in Russia, for every birth there are now 7 abortions.
According to whome? Pat Robertson? Jerry Fallwell? Weekly World News? Given the facts that A) getting an abortion is NOT a minor proceedure, and B) the Russian economy sucks, and C) common, cheap birth control, that doens't pass the sniff test.
(Research it yourself.)
Its your crazy assertion, so I think it's your job to prove your own points, rather than expect other people to do the research to prove that your point is correct. That said, I Googled for "russian aboriton rate", and according to this page, the rate for ten births there are thirteen abortions. Still incredibly high, but nothing like that 1:7 ratio you claim exists.
A great many abortions are carried out by women, who could well care for the child but who don't want to be bothered.
The longer a pregancy goes on, the less trivial an abortion is to perform. If a woman doens't want the 'hassle' of dealing with a baby, why do you think she'd wait until she needed a dialation and extration, a major operation?
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:17 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"According to whome? Pat Robertson? Jerry Fallwell?" "...the rate for ten births there are thirteen abortions. Still incredibly high, but nothing like that 1:7 ratio you claim exists."
Here's a quote from an article in the The Moscow News , "There may be no sex in Russia, so goes a Soviet urban legend. And somehow, with abortions outnumbering live births nearly 2 to 1, if you’re a Russian woman and never had one, you’re a statistical non-entity."
Here's another article at CNN that says 2.2 abortions for every 1 live birth When Mother Russia Doesn't Want Her Children
This was kind of interesting, "The Soviet Union was the first country in the world to legalize abortion back in 1920. Now it has one of the highest abortion rates on the planet, a place where many women have had four or six or even more of them. And in many cases, they've had the complications." "By one estimate, one-third of deaths among young Russian women are the result of abortions gone wrong."
and
"But Russian women and their society are changing. Under Communism, the moral aspect of abortion officially played no role. After the Russian revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks legalized abortion. In 1939, Stalin outlawed it. It was legalized again 1957.
Now the Russian Orthodox Church is speaking out on abortion, calling it morally wrong, and some women agree. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Abortion is murder, and no matter what happens, I'd never have an abortion."
This one really gives one pause for reflection.
"MANN (voice-over): Russia's birth rate has dropped so much that its population is shrinking. Right now, it's a country of 145 million people, but within 20 years, demographers say it will have 20 million fewer. By the middle of the next century - or rather the middle of this century, nearly another 20 million people will be gone."
When one considers that many children eventually grow up to have their parents ideology, it's kind of ironic to see that abortion advocates are literally killing themselves off. Clearly, if this trend is happening in any way in America like it is in Russia, we will need greatly expanded funding into women's studies programs (indoctrination centers) to keep the same numbers of women feeding the abortion mills.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the horse's mouth - Pravda - "Up to 60% of Russian pregnancies end in abortions," (first item that Google brings up, not too hard to find)
From the same article - "For every 100 women of childbearing age, there are 60 abortions in Russia, as against 10 to 15 in Britain and 5 or 6 in the Netherlands. When a Russian woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, she usually chooses surgery," http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/11166_abor tion.html
I remember an article back in the 70s, of course I no longer have a copy, which stated that abortion was the preferred method of birth control and family planning in the Soviet Union. Most young women in the 20-29 age bracket had had at least one, many had had 4-6. From the International Planned Parenthood Federation "...on average women experience 4-5 abortions during their reproductive lifetime."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:54 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"Up to 60% of Russian pregnancies end in abortions,"
Okay, roughly the same thing I found, but a little less. At exactly 66%, that would be 2 abortions for every 1 live birth so again, you have found a slightly lesser rate. Russian record keeping on abortions seems to be a little fuzzy. Either that, or some of their newspapers are statistically challenged.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Okay, roughly the same thing I found, but a little less. At exactly 66%, that would be 2 abortions for every 1 live birth so again, you have found a slightly lesser rate. Russian record keeping on abortions seems to be a little fuzzy. Either that, or some of their newspapers are statistically challenged.
Given the nature of what we are talking about, and the certain lack of good records, I consider the two stats functionally equivalent. Most of the sites I found quoted stats in the 1.7:1 to 2:1 range. I picked that particular one because it was Pravda, not the Baptist Coalition or anything like it.
Whatever the specific number, all the stats agreed that most pregnancies end in abortion. There was a very interesting article on mensnewsdaily by a guy about 20 who was very angry that such a large percentage of his generation had been aborted. I wonder what those abortion pioneers, the baby boomers, would have thought if those dreaded "over-30s" we weren't to trust came in and slaughtered over half of our generation.
Under most circumstances, slaughtering over half of any population would be considered an act of war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:20 AM December 8th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"There was a very interesting article on mensnewsdaily..."
Yes, I wish I could get in to read it. Ever since Thanksgiving, when MND made changes, all I get is a black screen when I go there. I sent an email to Mike mentioning that I was on dial up and couldn't get it. He said he noticed a drop off in hits, and would work on it, but it's been a week and nothing is different. A lot of poor men are now locked out of one of their favorite news sources. Ironically, I'm still able to get into everything else on the net with no problem.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the article I was mentioning was several months ago. But, to address your question about what has happened with the new format - Mike has gone to some extremely sophisticated web page techniques which introduce a lot of cross-browser compatibility issues.
The first question I would ask is what browser you are using and what version. It must support inline frames, which he now uses extensively. He's pushing Firefox, so I suspect that he develops for it.
zenpriest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:11 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using AOL version 9.0 (the latest they have out).
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:55 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
AOL has a reputation as the world's nastiest quirkiest browser. I'm relatively sure it won't support inline frames. I'd suggest either Firefox, Netscape, or Opera. I have also heard good things about Crazybrowser, but haven't tried it.
zenpriest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:05 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Thomas and Zen.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to whome? Pat Robertson? Jerry Fallwell? Weekly World News?
I don't read them. Nice try with the snide insinuation.
(Research it yourself.)
I didn't have a reference. If I'd had one, I would have given it. I also had neither the time nor the inclination to research it at the moment, so I said, "Research it yourself." Which is what you did. Good job! A+.
I've also found this. The reference says that there are almost 2 abortions per birth, which makes nearly 20 abortions per 10 births. Obviously there's a scatter in the estimates. In any case, the abortion rate is extremely high.
Given the facts that
A) getting an abortion is NOT a minor proceedure
I've known several women who have had abortions. In every case it was a minor procedure. Nice try.
B) the Russian economy sucks.
Neither you nor I know the relative rates of abortion in Russia based on economic status. I'd be very surprised, however, if there aren't a number of abortions by women who could well take care of the babies. Every women, whom I've known to have an abortion, could have cared for the child. They didn't want to be bothered.
C) common, cheap birth control, that doens't pass the sniff test.
Can you say that in English?
Most abortions are performed early in the pregnancy. The women, whom I've known to have had abortions, and there have been several, have made a point of how trivial the procedure was.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just who is supposedly gathering these statistics?
If you object to someone writing "Research it yourself" don't expect someone to find this out for you. Look it up.
You state now, If its just out of zygote stage, yes it is easy. Earlier you stated, getting an abortion is NOT a minor proceedure.
Obviously, the destruction of a viable fetus through, for instance, the brutal procedure of partial birth abortion is not simple, especially for the fetus. However, most abortions take place early in the pregnancy and are simple procedures.
Did you ever take any English?
I'm sure my English is far stronger than yours. Your statement common, cheap birth control, that doens't pass the sniff test was nonsense.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:00 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"This ultra-conservative and, yes, mysoginist nonsene really bothers me. It does not help conveying the message of equal rights for both sexes. It drives away liberal people who want more rights for men instead of less rights for women.
The evil women's studies professors who turn women into evil baby killers - give me a break!"
In the hallway of the Liberal Arts bldg. at the college where I work there is a women's studies bulletin board. On the board there is a sign that says, "If Men Could Get Pregnant Abortion Would Be A Sacrament." That sign is next to one that says, "My Choice My Body," and that sign is next to one that says, "What Can Men Do To Stop Their Violence Against Women."
Women's studies teachers are evil for the way the vilify men and blame them for all kinds of things they are not guilty of, and they are definitely advocates of baby killing. "Fetus" was originally Latin for "baby." Women's studies professors are strong advocates of partial birth abortion. In partial birth abortion labor is induced in a woman who is in the late term of her pregnancy. When the baby is in the process of being born, it is killed by having the back of its skull punctured, and then its brains are sucked out through the hole created by the stabbing. I am adamantly opposed to that process, and believe that process to be infanticide. I do not consider that opposition mysoginistic or in opposition to equal rights for men and women.
There are crisis pregnancy centers where women can have their babies and give them up for adoption, possibly to the Father of the child. Clearly, the Father of any baby should be involved in the life or death decision making process of what is going to happen to the baby at any stage in the babies development. These are difficult areas that affect the lives of all parties concerned, and I believe there are many factors that should all be taken into consideration before such a life or death decision is carried out unilaterally. Both parties involved in the creation of the life should at least have a say before a mediator in the hopes of reaching the most humane decision possible.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Men Could Get Pregnant Abortion Would Be A Sacrament.
Of course, this is ridiculous. In fact, one of the prime arguments used by the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade was the equal protection clause of the constitution (i.e., only women can get pregnant so laws against abortion deny women equal protection).
Consider full human cloning. Something like 87% of the population believes cloning should be illegal. So much for all those buzz words like "reproductive freedom" and "my body, my choice." Killing life is considered acceptable by about half the population, but creating life is considered wrong by the vast majority. Why? Simple. Abortion applies only to women, yet cloning applies to both sexes.
No. If men could get pregnant, abortion most likely would be illegal. It would no longer be a "woman's issue."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:12 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"I really wish I didn't have to read "news" items with Christian fundamentalist rants attached to them on all these American men's rights sites."
Gee, and I thought liberals were advocates of tolerance, and inclusivity, and here you don't even want us to have "Freedom of Speech." Maybe liberals are different in Europe.
"Makes me wonder if I support the right side."
Well here's the other side: You might be happier here .
As we say in America, "Don't let the screen door hit you in the a _ _ on the way out.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As we say in America, "Don't let the screen door hit you in the a _ _ on the way out. "
Yeah, right.
Thanks for your comments. Well, I have no intention of supporting NOW or some other nonsense like that, but I don't want to work with people who throw bibles at me either. One simply should not force a desperate woman to carry a child for 9 months inside of her that she never wanted.
Abuse of liberal abortian laws are also a fact, of course, and should be taken into account (which does not happen now). To lower the abortion rate, they allowed the "anonymous birth" here now which violates the child's rights to know his parents.
It's a difficult subject but one thing is a fact: some women will always be desperate enough to try getting rid of the fetus, no matter what the law might say. If the abortion is carried out early enough, it's no problem from my point of view - otherwise, you have to punish masturbation or using contraceptives because they "kill" sperm that would have created offspring otherwise. And then we're back in the middle ages.
Abortion laws need a reform, not revocation. And I stand to my statement that the majority of society will not be reached with that radicalism. Many feminists have the support of men, and this brought their breakthrough - but we will not get support from many women if the prospect for them is to be forced to bear a child e.g. after an "accident" with the contraceptions.. I'm sure I would fight against that if I was a woman, no matter how right some things that MRAs say are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny, no one really suggested abolishing abortion, although I would sign the papers if they did.
I am suprised, you are using the feminist scare tactics to intimidate us, but I thought you were a MRA. Hmmm.
-we want to abolish abortion as a group (untrue)
-we want to abolish birth control as a group (untrue)
-we want to take women back to the middle ages (untrue)
Are we responding to the same posts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:37 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerning, the situation with men's reproductive rights is far more dire than that for women. I'm more than willing to tolerate anyone saying anything about abortion. It just doesn't worry me.
It worries me that many people, and all the major new media, are totally clueless about men's lack of reproductive rights.
Please try to get yourself all worked up about the criminalization of male sexuality. Do that for a decade, then you've earned the right to make snide comments about "ultraconservative misogynists".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Certs is a candy mint. NO! Certs is a breath mint! - WAIT! You're both right!"
Here is a perfect example of why men's rights have gone nowhere for 4 decades now - once the name-calling starts and people start shooting off their mouths, discussion gives way to shouted-insult matches.
It drives away liberal people who want more rights for men instead of less rights for women.
Nice dodge, but it falls on its face. "Rights" and "practices" are two entirely different things. Some women see affirmative action and state-funded abortions as inalienable "rights", and no progress toward justice can be made until those things are redefined away from "rights", which has the effect of taking away from women things they view as rights.
Women practice the "right" to punish their husbands for not living up to their totally inane unrealistic expectations, and that is a "right" which men must demolish if they ever want to be treated by the family court system.
It is a real tragedy for men that most of the resitance to feminism has come from the conservatives and traditionalists, because some of their positions really are over the top and unattractive to a more moderate perspective. I have lost count of the number of arguments I have had with "liberal" men who argued against what they THOUGHT I believed, but actually had nothing to do with what I believe. One such man is a college roommate of mine, a good Minnesota liberal, who right now is in jail for failing to meet his alimony obligations.
Funny how quickly liberals turn into conservatives once they start getting ass-raped by the anti-male, pro-female family court system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to say a word of support for n.j.
I've always been concerned about the degree to which the men's rights movement seems to be associated with the poitical Right, with religious evangelism, and the Pro-Life lobby.
I want to inform everyone here and now that I am an atheist, I am very staunchly pro-Choice, and I consider myself Left-wing. I consider neo-conservatism and the Christian Right to be a serious threat to democracy and civil rights, and I regard the Bush administration as an unelected war-mongering junta who siezed power through electoral fraud. What we saw in 2000 in the USA was a coup d'etat.
One of the reasons I have grown to hate feminism so much is that it has effectively driven men out of the Left. Feminists are trying to appropriate the political Left for themselves, and I feel that I have no political home there any more. One of the many bad things that feminism has done is to drive the male population - even their own former sympathisers like myself - into the arms of the political Right.
My dream would be to reform and rejuvenate the Left, and that is never going to happen until we get rid of Marx and get rid of feminism. I recommend reading "A Darwinian Left" by Peter Singer.
In the meantime don't give me any of your 'Kill an abortionist for Jesus' crap.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love your post, I love it! And I too hate that "kill an abortionist for Jesus" rhetoric bullshit. We pro-Choice folks never bombed nor endorse any church bombings, but oh how those psycho-Christians love to endorse their own terrorist acts. I *DESPISE* the Christian Right and the Bush Administration. I try to malign both as much as possible :-)
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:07 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"...but oh how those psycho-Christians love to endorse their own terrorist acts. I *DESPISE* the Christian Right and the Bush Administration. I try to malign both as much as possible :-()"
You are obviously an abusive person who has no respect for the rights of the unborn, or others who don't share your narrow view of things. As far as "psycho violence," this last election proved that the bigoted, intolerant left (supporters of women's rights to the exclusion of men's rights) are not shy to use significant levels of violence and intimidation to further their cause. No wonder so many innocent men have been falsely imprisoned and worse by laws originated from that group. The one thing you big mouthed liberals keep forgetting when you shoot your self-righteous mouths off is that there are more people out there, than those in your group, who feel just as strongly about the issues, but from their perspective, i.e., “more people out there than those in your group = the majority of voters.” Next time you engage in one of your vulgar diatribes, trying to shove your opinions down the throats of others, try to engage your brain, and present your viewpoints in a cogent manner. Your power of persuasion is pitiful for a pre-law major.
Happy to be an ex-Democrat, thanks to obnoxious people like you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh please...Cry mean me a river.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:09 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
"Oh please...Cry mean me a river.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*"
No need, you are already up to your ears in "de Nile."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:12 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"I *DESPISE* the Christian Right and the Bush Administration. I try to malign both as much as possible :-)"
BRING IT ON! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah....you can support pro-chivalry, "women are mothers so they MUST be morally superior to men" people all you want. I don't care, it's your fate not mine. But be warned those people are OBSESSED with the whole maternalistic, 'men should be men beasts of burdens for the poor little women,' and they seriously miss the point that women and feminists are NOT going to change their ways anytime soon, even if men start proposing marriage and procreating kids more and more. They expect young men to be willing to give up their money, genetic material, assets, parental rights, and legal rights and practically destroy themselves in court. They want young men to be 'legally masochistic' for the sake of chivalry, pampering the woman who destroyed them, and 'be gentlemen'(aka: a beast of burden for women to use and abuse).
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:04 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yeah....you can support pro-chivalry..." "They want young men to be 'legally masochistic' for the sake of chivalry, pampering the woman who destroyed them, and 'be gentlemen'(aka: a beast of burden for women to use and abuse)."
You and your liberal ilk are saddly deluded. Women oppotunistically have it both ways in the liberal camp. That way they are allowed to maximize their exploitation of men. I suggest you try correcting the excesses of feminism in your own camp, because I have challenged those in three camps on all those points, but find only the liberals are not receptive.
You'd be surprised at how sympathetic people are in non-liberal camps to the plight of men, and how much they realize the feminist deviltry that is a direct product of the support of Democrats. I heard a men's rights lobbyiest say on Saturday that the Feminists own the Democrat party.
Take your, "I care about the rights of men," to your liberal party ilk and see what happens. I've done that, and have been driven away by the anti-male liberal bigots. I tried it on the right and libertarian and was surprised to find people willing to work with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I suggest you try correcting the excesses of feminism in your own camp, because I have challenged those in three camps on all those points, but find only the liberals are not receptive."
I am, sir. Try to remember that they aren't very receptive to Pro-Men's Rights Male Activists because they get the wrong idea (ie: barefoot and pregnant, let's go back to 'Leave It To Beaver' fifties) when they hear 'Men's Rights Movement' from men. Male Democrats are scared shitless of being castrated by women's groups if they dare ask the feminists to back off. But if they hear a female democrat say "you know, feminism has fucked up a lot of things here in the West and it is oppressing men and boys, creating a new form of fascism that's belligerently misandric, and it's time to cut the feminists out our party, and push for true gender equality" they think about that.
I have spoken to liberal male democrats on my campus and you wouldn't believe how shocked they are to hear that a female Democrat isn't a feminist. I tell them what I belive, what the Men's Rights Movement stands for, and they actually seem happy and even relieved. They immediately open up and tell me all of the injustices that men face, the damages feminism has done to men and boys, all of the very same things that we talk about here. It's like a therapy session--well not really but you know what I'm getting at. Perhaps they're hoping that a woman will come forward and tell her 'sisters' that it's time to end the Gender Nazism and misandry, and further more, forget the whole female victimology shit, because it's just stupid and completely false. Feminists need a verbal slap in the face from a 'sister' (not that I am a 'sister' of their camp) in order to truly listen. The campus feminists actually shut-up and listen to me when I speak, and they too are astonished, and sit there with a "wow" look on their face (perhaps they're re-thinking their views or calling me a female misogyinist).
No political party is perfect. I distrust all political parties even the Democrats. For me when it comes to my support of a political party it's about 'who do I distrust *less*'. I distrust the Republicans more because they are so closely tied to (and possibly even promote) Homophobia/Gay-Bashing, Racial Bigotry, Anti-Environmental policies,
Christian Extremism, starting illegal wars, bringing back the Draft, and 'to hell with the poor, middle class, senior citizens, and let's out source jobs' (like my Dad's job). I like Senator McCain and Guiliani (I know that I didn't spell his name correctly). I would vote for those guys to be president over Hilliary Clinton any damn day. I also liked the late Ronald Reagan and (the long dead) Abe Lincoln. The Republican party has changed so much (for the worse) since the end of Segregation and when Reagan left the White House.
But anyways....."Take your, 'I care about the rights of men,' to your liberal party ilk and see what happens," oh so it's better to not give a shit about you and the rights of other men and boys? I could give up all together if that's what you want, not that I would let anyone not even you stop me.
It maybe only the Liberal-Male-Democrats on my campus who are enjoying the ability to speak freely about their Pro-Men's Rights views to me, but it is a sign that not all liberal democratic men are in the pockets of the Feminists which is why I keep preaching to them and inspiring them to stay the hell away from the campus women's studies bitches. The Liberal Male Democrats on television and on Capitol Hill maybe pussy-whipped by the feminists, but the young male democrats on my campus are starting to wake up and speak freely about men's issues. Change is coming, just not as fast you may think or want but that's politics for you.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You go gurl!
Male Democrats are scared shitless of being castrated by women's groups if they dare ask the feminists to back off.
Haven't most boys learned to avoid the democrat party by now? How potent a force will these eunuchs represent in your party, say, in 2008? Forget about trying to rally male dems for Mens Rights. They are hopeless!
But if they hear a female democrat say "you know, feminism has fucked up a lot of things here in the West and it is oppressing men and boys, creating a new form of fascism that's belligerently misandric, and it's time to cut the feminists out our party, and push for true gender equality" they think about that.
How wonderful for you! I am surprised that you are having so much success in this considering how much difficulty professional advocates such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Tammy Bruce meet. You must be an incredibly persuasive speaker. But that doesn't really square with the things you have written on this board. What gives?
The Liberal Male Democrats on television and on Capitol Hill maybe pussy-whipped by the feminists, but the young male democrats on my campus are starting to wake up and speak freely about men's issues. Change is coming, just not as fast you may think or want but that's politics for you.
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for balance to be restored by the forces of the liberal left, especially campus liberals! The democrats are dead, anyway.
Nice effort, Thea. I give it a C-.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But that doesn't really square with the things you have written on this board. What gives?"
When I'm trying to pesuade someone in a real-life setting such as the Starbucks here on campus, I don't talk in the style that I do here on boards. I was trained by a Speech/Debate coach on persuasive speaking in real-life settings as if I were in a Debate Tournament. But we're in cyberspace, not a tournament. Besides, talking like you are in a Speech/Debate Tournament constantly will render you with an ulcer and a migraine. I learned that the hard way, not with an ulcer, but I did have chronic migraines for a while because I was so serious and uptight all the time. My coach suffered from ulcers though because he stressed himself out by being so serious and uptight all the time. You would have thought that I had no sense of humor and that I was a robot like Al Gore. This site gives me a place to vent. If I just vent my views with the people here on campus I'm trying to reach and inspire, they won't listen. You guys are already Men's Rights Activists and have been educated about Men's Issues. I have to educate these people in a "Greek Philosopher" manner if I'm going to get anywhere with them.
And a C-?! Damn it, I had an over all 3.5 GPA (B+ average) until that! Seriously I do have a 3.5 right now, unlike my room-mate who will probably be departing soon. In another words, she has straight F's right now, hasn't seen the inside of most of her classes since the semester began, and final exams are next week. Oh but she's still out partying so she probably wouldn't know that. What a waste of $15,000 a year tuition--money that isn't even her's. Anybody want a leach for a wife? My room-mate will make a great one.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:18 PM December 8th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
"I have spoken to liberal male democrats on my campus and you wouldn't believe how shocked they are to hear that a female Democrat isn't a feminist. I tell them what I belive, what the Men's Rights Movement stands for, and they actually seem happy and even relieved. They immediately open up and tell me all of the injustices that men face, the damages feminism has done to men and boys, all of the very same things that we talk about here."
Thea:
At the very least that is encouraging.
"The campus feminists actually shut-up and listen to me when I speak, and they too are astonished, and sit there with a "wow" look on their face (perhaps they're re-thinking their views or calling me a female misogyinist)."
You are to commended for confronting them. They have driven a lot of good men and women away from the party, and worse.
Ex-Democrat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:41 AM December 8th, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
No it's not, or do you think these women would happily bear children if one would outlaw abortion, and everything would be OK again? Many pregnant women would kill themselves, try to somehow kill the child or would have to raise it under terrible circumstances. This discussion has already taken place decades ago, and the results are unmistakable.
What a pack of lies. This is what the abortionists always argue. It is pathetic. The fact is that when abortion is illegal and not socially sanctioned there is not widespread murder and abuse of children by women. When abortion is illegal women are held accountable for murdering their children. When abortion is illegal women do not en-masse resort to back ally abortions. For those that do they are charged with murder.
Notice that the Marxist-Feminist, leftist, collectivists, communists, socialists, and more all wanted and got Scott Peterson charged with the murder of an unborn child. Yet if the mother had have killed the child then it would have been defined as an abortion. It’s okay for mothers to kill children, but men are charged with murder.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the unborn child is a tissue mass and thus there is no murder by a male or the tissue mass is human and Scott Peterson is guilty of killing a child. If Scott killed that child then abortion is in fact murder, but of course the pro-child killing crowd cannot embrace the pure simplicity of this fact.
Further, when intrinsic worth of an unborn child is recognized that transfers into living children having more intrinsic worth, which transfers into valuing the intrinsic worth of marriage and the father. The result is a culture of life and pro-marriage laws that reinforce marriage. Such values are proven to reduce violence and lead to societal stability.
When a culture devalues families and unborn children then it is a culture of materialism. Such cultures permit the literal killings of children who are in the process of birth. Only a savage culture permits such atrocities against children. America is such a savage culture.
Where there are atrocities against children, civilizations ALWAYS collapse. It took almost 100 years for that to happen in the Soviet Union, and we are in fact witnessing a collapse in America. It is only a matter of time now till this country collapses under socialism and the culture of murder.
History does repeat itself. We would know this if our public state-controlled (read Marxist-Feminist controlled) education system did not censor the history of the Soviet Union/Red China and told the truth about their oppressive murderous regimes.
What we have is all about P.C. censorship that requires a form of multiculturalism where no value judgments can be made about these evil regimes. In the place of values, we have relativism and the elimination of right-n-wrong. With relativism, the political right (because of their values system) is defined to be evil by the left. By contrast, the left can do no wrong because by definition they are the elite and always know what is “good” for the people. Trust me when I say that I’ve witnessed the left defining paternity fraud and false allegations as being a public good.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>We would know this if our public state-controlled (read Marxist-Feminist controlled) education system
Again, give me a break. After 60 years of what is essentially US occupation, my country is about as "Marxist" as Texas. We know about the murderousness of the Soviets too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and widescale use of birth control and abortion.
No, those are a means to an end, not the source of the problem. You're ignoring basic economics.
In pre-industrialized countries, it makes sense to have large families because most people work in agriculture, and children can help you out on the farm. That, and the fatality rate amongst children is higher.
In industrialized countries, children become an economic liability instead of an asset. Small family farms are virtually non-existent, and your kid can't follow you to the office to lend a hand with your TPS reports. And sure, there are a lot of people who work out of their own homes, but most of those jobs are specialized. Bob Joe the self-employed electrician wont want 8 year old Bob Jr. out there stringing electrical wires.
And thats when the economy is good. Russia's economy is in the shitter, and has been as long as anyone has been alive in that country. And what happens if you have a shitty economy in an industrilaized nation? Your birth rate drops. Happened during the Great Depression in the U.S., and its happening now in Russia.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population collapse is hitting Singapore. According to this article, Ms Chan Pui Yin, a film producer who is married to a businessman states, "I have no time to have sex, let alone the commitment to bring up a child." Apparently, married couples in Singapore aren't rolling in the hay much.
Other tidbits:
"Sociologists were not surprised by the results which they said were a reflection of the emphasis on career and social status by Singaporeans.
"'The definition of success has changed,' said marriage psychologist Dr Frederick Toke.
"'It's measured not by your family, but by your career and your good social status,' he said.
"Tan Thuan Seng, president of the Christian group Focus on the Family Singapore, echoed similar sentiments.
"'People are more selfish now, because of the focus on individual freedom and pleasure,' Tan said."
In case anyone is wondering, Singapore is one of the world's most prosperous nations with "with per capita GDP equal to that of the leading nations of Western Europe."
So much for poverty being the cause of population ageing and collapse. Easy access to cheap, safe birth control and abortion have made it possible to drastically reduce the fertility rate. A change in values has led to people wanting to have few if any children.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
