|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:11 AM February 1st, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Can you imagine the lynch mob of shrill, rabid, foaming hags this guy's going to have to face tomorrow? I'm sure they're already posting the SCUM manifesto on notice boards with his photo on it and calling 911 to relieve him of his property, since I'm positive that the honest, open, unbiased intellectual debate of gender issues constitutes "abuse" under VAWA.
It's almost unbelieveable that in one of the bastions of misandry (a university in a feminist-controlled country), that this piece could even emerge. I guess the editor's hotline/leash to the women's Studies department must've been cut by a bulldozer or something...
Still, it is refreshing to see something resembling honest, intellectual debate on this subject rather than the usual poisoned, androphobic ideology. What a fascinating concept: including men under the more general term "humans". Certainly that must qualify as some sort of actionable abuse these days ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 08:41 AM February 1st, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Worth a read, I'm glad to see that men are starting to see the injustice and hypocracy inherent in the pro-abortion position. Everytime I hear their tripe I get a chuckle. It's odd, but for some reason when I bring up the fact that their noble stance for 'choice' and 'freedom' only applies to women, they get all waspish and say something inane like 'you should have kept it in your pants'. LOL!
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:26 AM February 1st, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe that abortion should be legal, but as the end of the article states there needs to be modifications to the rule. "Both the Man and Woman need to agree". The only time that a Woman should be able to abort a fetus without the consent of the Man is due to his early demise, or it is proven that she was raped. Through out history Women have aborted their fetuses, both with the consent of the Man, and without it. If the Woman doesn't want the child then full custody should be awarded to the Man. In so far as the argument of a fetus being a living entity from the time that a sperm enters the egg, or in some beliefs as soon as either the egg, or the sperm are formed individualy; we need to deal with the actual Human Rights involved in this situation, and leave the religious arguments where they belong, within the homes and places of worship of the many different religious People involved. People decide whether or not they want a Child. The only real problem that we have had is that as the article states Men have not been treated as Human Beings. We do not change this situation by not treating Women as Human Beings so that both genders are oppressed equally. That isn't what I believe EQUALITY is supposed to be about. How can anyone say that the government should have control over the individual persons own body? When the fetus becomes a breathing entity then that fetus becomes a Child. But then again, some arguments are designed to implement control to keep the population at the bursting level so that the government has new meat to abuse. I believe that the Bible says that one that believes should lead by example, not by whip and chain. Anyway, EQUAL RIGHTS, not equal oppression! Just my opinion Folks.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 12:43 PM February 1st, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in principle, I agree. However, what we have witnessed is 40 years of confusion following the law that allows women "choices" while men are given responsibilities. And women have used this law to subjugate and humiliate men. I suggest we take this opportunity in the supreme court, to overturn a bad law (roe v wade). The result will be that women will be incensed and 'up in arms' at the injustice. Let them taste that fully. THEN let them come together with men to put together a good law that allows men choices on these important issues. It cannot and should not stand that the rights of one group is at the expense of the other. Applying pressure in this way can bring more women to the table to help craft a law that does not impose "justice" for only one side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:30 PM February 1st, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
If in principle you agree, then chew on this. By playing the subjagation game we will actually delay any real progress towards real EQUALITY. By turning the tables we will then just do the same thing that Women have done to Men, and start the cycle all over again. It would seem to me that particular form of action, or inaction would just help keep Men and Women at each others throat. That of course would help keep the lawyers and social services systems that have blossomed in guaranteed jobs and money. I personally am not interested in punishing Women, specifically if doing so will be a detriment to our Chidren, whether Male, or Female. "It cannot and should not stand that the rights of one group is at the expense of the other." I totally agree with you. That is why I am not interested in subjagating Women to raise up Men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 11:33 AM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
history has shown that augmenting an existing, bad law, does not rectify it.
Case in point: the Violence Against Women Act - a simple idiot could have changed the name to reflect what the law should be (the Family Violence Act, for example) - but no. They try to appease those that want change by minimally adding a few words here or there...and not even change the name.
What I am suggesting is that the whole abortion framework needs to be scrapped and the board wiped clean. If it pisses women off - too bad! It certainly WILL get them back to the table for discussion. Its all about positioning and leverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:57 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed it would piss off Women, and in affect I agree with that statement. But, on the other hand using the system to gain position and leverage only stands to strengthen the system. If in fact the whole abortion framework was scrapped we would see a rise in illegal abortion clinics as we did before. We would see Womens groups starting another underground system as they did before. Of course if one were part of the system that would indeed guarantee jobs within certain sectors. But oppression is still oppression, and I for one am against oppression, either that of a Man, or a Woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 04:58 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I am against oppression too. However, what we have today (regarding the abortion framework) is OPPRESSIVE to Men.
The thought that a Man may be providing all means of support for his wife (food, shelter, 401k financing, health benefits, gym membership, etc etc etc), and yet has NO SAY in the termination of his children is abhorant. As the article points out, he legally is NON-EXISTENT in any type of decision regarding HIS reproductive future.
We need to chalk the existing experimentation and its results up to history. Tear off the page, and start over. Eliminating the woman's right to subjugate men like this is the first step, I suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:31 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
If we tear off the page we should write another that is fair to both genders. I agree with everything that you have said, as I have lived the fact of that particular oppression for 29 years, and have fought the system for the entire time. I would not wish what I have had to endure on anyone, unless of course we were speaking of the people that designed this social management system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:19 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"I would not wish what I have had to endure on anyone, unless of course we were speaking of the people that designed this social management system."
--------
Kim Gandy and her ilk at N.O.W. and all her male sycophant allies in Congress are counting on you to retain your chivalry .... and your naivety.
They have a label for chivalrous men ... PREY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:40 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry? Naivety? I think you are confusing a desire to stop having the government manipulate me and have me act out my frustration on any Female as to further their desire to divide what used to be the strength of the average American, the Family unit. I am smarter than that. What you propose would further bolster the empire of attorneys and social service cottage industries that have sprung up because of this. the only thing that would change would be that men would be on top. How immature when most adults just want to have the government quit manipulating them and their Children. I don't believe that not being an asshole that acts out on my frustration makes me either naive, or chivalrous, just a little deeper thinker..............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 10:12 AM February 3rd, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Guys; "he legally is NON-EXISTENT in any type of decision regarding HIS reproductive future"...
this line says it all. We have no say in our own reproductive course.
In the old days, if a woman could not conceive, it was grounds for divorce. Today, you can still do that...however, she gets at least half of everything you made...and in some states she gets alimony from you until you die, EVEN IF SHE REMARRYS.
Oh yes...chivalry is still alive. But only in the court systems where women are rewarded for sharing their vaginas with men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:28 PM February 3rd, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
If in fact they did share their vagina, we wouldn't have to pay so damn much! Just a little humor!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 01:16 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
What I am suggesting is that the whole abortion framework needs to be scrapped and the board wiped clean. If it pisses women off - too bad! It certainly WILL get them back to the table for discussion. Its all about positioning and leverage.
I see no moral problem with this. I consider the moral question unanswerable, since people differ as to whether common morality protects fetuses; it protects moral agents, but this is a case
where people differ on the extent to which it protects certain non-moral agents.
A moral agent is someone who knows what morality requires, prohibits, encourages, discourages and allows. A fetus isn't a moral agent; the issue becomes one of deciding what, besides moral agents, morality protects. Animals to some extent. Animal rights is another controversial issue. Some people argue on religious grounds. I don't want to get into those specifically; I only want to point out why the controversy is such that it has to be referred to the legal and politial sytem: since the question of abortion is morally unanswerable, it has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution.
The relevance of this to the men's movement is as follows.
If pro-choice advocates are generally opposed to reform in some area of concern to MRAs, and if their support would make a difference (it would), then I would oppose the political right to an abortion, and I would not be morally unjustified, because the question is morally undecidable, so there can only be a legal and political right to an abortion, as opposed to a moral right (on the basis of a rather weak general common morality; certainly not on the basis of much stronger moral codes ( e.g., religious), which come out clearly against abortion).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:54 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
In her excellent book WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports, author Kate O'Beirne writes an entire chapter on feminism and abortion issues.
(Excerpt)
"Modern feminism's biggest enemies are the smallest humans. These activists have made abortion on demand the fundamental right that women's equality depends on. They argue that women can't be the equal of men unless they are free to rid themselves of their unborn children at any time for any reason. Since abortion on demand was elevated to a constitutional right in 1973, these feminists fiercely fight to keep the issue in the courts insulated from public opinion, because the majority of Americans oppose the majority of abortions. Lacking the public's support for their radical abortion agenda, feminists wrap their demands in a tissue of euphemisms and lies and demonize their opponents as misogynist religious zealots.
Feminist fundamentalism holds that the battle of the sexes can't be won unless women make war on the tiniest enemies of the independence. How can women be the equal of men when their bodies betray them? Here abortion advocates reveal their belief that women's fertility makes us inherently inferior to men." (p. 157)
I enthusiastically recommend this book for all readers of MANN, not the least because the feminists have mounted an aggressive campaign to sabotage the book's sales over at amazon.com in the Reader Reviews section.
As posters above have commented regarding the Iowa college student's op-ed, the TRUTH is always the first target of feminists, because when it is spoken or published or broadcast, feminism loses every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:09 AM February 1st, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
>"The fembots and their pet femboys must be going crazy with the way things are developing these days."
Are you kidding? They SHOWED UP CRAZY to begin with! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 03:22 PM February 1st, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Very well-written, very cogent, very hard to argue with. So of course the reply from anti-C4M people will be loud, condemnatory and accusing rather than sensible, reasonable, and fair.
This is a real bookmark-it piece. Better yet, save it to your hard drive, as who knows if/when the campus feminist machinations at UNI will get this piece mysteriously removed from the server...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 01:10 PM February 2nd, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
A great article. I downloaded it for my MRA archive. I especially liked the point that men were legally non-existant in the matter of post conceptional choice. Even children have rights that parents have to respect in matters of their rearing.
However, abortion as "a woman's choice only" has been around since 1973, over 30+ years now. Why did it take so long for an insightful article like this to finally be written by a man no less?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Here's an