|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:57 PM May 7th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"Gentlemen, we're in a time warp, and I mean that in a good way. Over the millennia, we've been able to keep women's options severely restricted."
"Gentlemen, we cannot give up the fight. We have controlled women for millennia, and we can still do it now. We just need to focus on reproduction. It takes two to tango, but she's got a bigger stake in the dance. Once the music ends, the effects can last forever, and that's where we gain our advantage.
We want women pregnant. It slows them down, interrupts their careers, places more demands on their time, makes them more dependent on men and encumbers them with children who further reduce their options."
"Like the good old days, we'll just keep reducing their options and keep the ladies under control."
This article is addressed directly to men, "gentlemen" to be specific as if that's a dirty word. Gentlemen is not a pejorative, at least not yet. It's very sexist, bigoted, hateful and just plain stupid to blame all men for the "opt out" choices that women make. No one could get away with blaming any group (blacks, Hispanics, women, etc.) other than men in such a manner. Women have the power politically to do anything they want so blaming patriarchy is the height of man-hating bigotry, probably learned in one of those misandrist women's studies classes taught on college campuses all over America. Women are organized politically, have voting power for every woman born in the 20th century, and that's just about 99.9999% of every woman alive today - if not more.
Some men need to get their head out of their women's studies textbooks and read what politically powerful women's groups are saying today, Phllis Schlafly , and Concerned Women for America , and Independent Women's Forum
Nobody tells politically powerful women in America what to do today, especially men. Women as a group comprise the majority of voters. Most women are "choosing" to oppose the bigoted and traditional family hating gender feminist agenda of their own free will. Most men are also "choosing to oppose the misandrist, traditional family hating, gender feminist agenda. If the gender feminist agenda isn't flying it's because intelligent people see all the destructive stupidity that the gender feminist frauds have perpetrated against men, women and traditional families over the decades.
I am sick and tired of gender feminist ideologues marching male, gender feminist, toadies out (as if they are the voice of all men) to bigotedly blame all men for the will of all the people. How long will such stupidity go on?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:27 PM May 7th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Rivers is one of those men in the feminist movement that I like to refer to as a "MINO".
M.I.N.O. (Man in name only).
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:01 PM May 7th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess that explains why he is so ignorant about men's lack of choices relative to those of women. You think he would have learned something from the men on the Denver Broncos. Maybe he didn't have any real friends there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:38 PM May 7th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen, we're in a time warp, and I mean that in a good way. Over the millennia, we've been able to keep women's options severely restricted.
You're not just in a time warp, dude, but you must also be a moron. "Emergency contraception?" Is that when a guy sends a woman a note the day after declaring that, even though he agreed to have sex without a condom, he doesn't want to be a parent? Nope, no such choices for men. And it's not biology that makes men into wallets, paying "child support" for unplanned parenthood. It's idiots like this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 12:25 PM May 8th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: “Good news, guys: It's back to those good ol' sexist days” May 6 Reggie Rivers essay.
Reggie Rivers really went off the deep end with his anti-male rant of an essay. While the rejection of the emergency contraception bill was misguided, it is absurd to make the leap to saying that men want to keep women under control by keeping them pregnant.
In reality, women today have a great deal of reproductive choices relative to men. For example, a woman can abort her unborn child without any input from the father. Alternatively, she can give birth to a child and force the father to pay child support for at least 18 years. Too often, men are forced to pay support for children that aren’t even theirs (this is called paternity fraud, which occurs in 20 – 30% of tested men).
The “good old patriarchy” that Rivers alludes to seemed to mostly benefit the wealthy among men in the past. Meanwhile, most men continue to work relatively long hours in disproportionately hazardous conditions in order to support their wives and families. This is hardly the oppression of women.
Steven G. Van Valkenburg
[address]
[day and evening phone number]
[email address]
To send a letter to the Denver Post, email:
openforum@denverpost.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:55 PM May 8th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
This commentary on the religious right insults men by suggesting that all men are right-wing extremists who want to control women. This is no the case.
Who cares what they do with their reproductive rights? Who cares if they have more educational and business opportunities? Let them go for it. I'm certainly not stopping them. I have work to do. Sorry to disappoint, but the occupation of oppressor has always seems unutterably boring to me, even if I had the time to consider it.
I see no problem with women having their reproductive rights; the problem I see is with men not having any. Men who get involuntarily circumcised as infants don't have a basic reproductive right: the right to uninterrupted sexual development. The law against female genital mutilation violates the 14th amenment to the United States Constitution, since the right to genital integrity is not applied impartially to all sexes. Some desperate religious fanatics claim that it's ok to mutilate little boys, and anyone who claims otherwise is against religions that insist on breaking moral rules (do not disable, do not inflict pain, do not diminish please, do not limit freedom) to follow religious ideals (if it walks, God commands you to circumcise it). But it is no more anti-religious to be against involuntary circumcision than it is anti-white to be against slavery.
Anyway, the trouble with the article is that it seems to suggest that women have fewer reproductive options than they have, and that all men actually want to reduce women's options. My impression is that the men's movement wants the reproductive rights of males to be recognized and respected. One of those rights follows from the right to one's own body: the right to uninterrupted sexual development. I leave it to the c4m experts to establish the link between the right of a person to own his own body and the various C4M proposals, if this is how they proceed. My point is that there is a relatively straightforward conclusion that comes from the recognition that the "right to one's own body" should be applied impartially to all sexes: that men, as well as women, have a findamental right to uninterrupted sexual development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 07:35 PM May 11th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The Denver Post printed my letter, as well as fellow MRA Earl Fibish's submission. There was a bit of editing on their part, however:
Reproduction laws and inequality of the sexes
Re: "Good news, guys: It's back to those good ol' sexist days," May 6 Reggie Rivers column.
Reggie Rivers' diatribe in response to Gov. Bill Owens' veto of the emergency contraception bill disparages the male populace by suggesting that keeping women pregnant is their antidote to equality. But more importantly, the column fails to acknowledge the extent of anti-male discrimination that continues unabated today.
Despite Owens' veto, women continue to enjoy numerous options for refusing parenthood - yet are also capable of depriving men of this same right should the woman choose to accept parenthood. Eighteen-plus years of child support obligations can be imposed on men even when the woman deliberately impregnated herself. Thanks to the legality of paternity fraud in Colorado, child support can also be imposed on a man even when the child is not his.
Other examples of anti-male discrimination include: male-only military-draft registration; the denial of funding to male victims of domestic violence; the underfunding of prostate cancer research relative to breast cancer research, despite nearly equal death rates for the two diseases; the frequent dispossession of men and fathers in divorce courts; the fact that "affirmative action" adversely affects black men and white men alike; etc.
These topics are far worthier of Rivers' journalistic abilities.
Earl S. Fibish, Denver
...
Reggie Rivers went off the deep end with his anti-male rant of an essay. While the rejection of the emergency contraception bill was misguided, it is absurd to make the leap to saying that men want to keep women under control by keeping them pregnant.
In reality, women today have a great deal of reproductive choices relative to men. For example, a woman can abort her unborn child without any input from the father. Alternatively, she can give birth to a child and force the father to pay child support.
The "good old patriarchy" that Rivers alludes to seemed to mostly benefit the wealthy among men in the past. Meanwhile, most men continue to work relatively long hours in disproportionately hazardous conditions in order to support their wives and families. This is hardly the oppression of women.
Steven G. Van Valkenburg, Westminster
Here is the online link to the letters that got published today:
http://www.denverpost.com/letters
Choose the May 11 letters to see them.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
