Roe v. Wade for Men Shot Down Again

"It doesn't guarantee equality-- just formal equality." Wtf?

I guess it's kind of like equality but not quite.

Females aged 18 to 25 don't formally have to register for SSS.
Males under 18 aren't formally protected from GM.

Doublespeak alert!

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com - Old, phased out due to Google's policies. Archives here.
http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com - Current.

From the clearly biased and sexist article:

The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit all differentiations on the basis of sex. It guarantees only formal equality - the right of likes to be treated alike.

To make a sex equality claim, therefore, a male plaintiff must first show that he is "similarly situated" to females for purposes of the particular state action involved.

Well. Isn't that pretty. Ever notice that nobody is too picky about people being "similarly situated" when the case involves women's or minority rights? The doctrine of equality of outcomes is applied to ALL groups, and AGAINST men. But that's OK. We're men, not human beings, right?

I wonder if they realize the hole they've just dug for themselves. Probably not.

See, if you have to be "similarly situated" to be protected equally by the law, that means that we can all start discriminating based on differences in:

- intelligence
- size
- physical strength

and all sorts of other things that are demonstrably different between arbitrary groups of people (i.e. between the races, genders, even nationalities or religions, if a statistically valid difference can be found in members of one "group" versus another). After all, surely people from a group of "likes" with demonstrably lower strength, or intelligence, are not "similarly situated", RIGHT?

While I am not a lawyer, and we can certainly count on the courts to selectively apply the law against us, unless this doublespeak is overturned by SCOTUS, there is only one possible outcome:

as I see it, it would become perfectly legal to arbitrarily discriminate against a member of a group, simply because they're not "similarly situated" (e.g. women's lesser size and strength, women's reduced abilities in math and science, Asian peoples' demonstrably higher average IQ, etc.) This would mean that racial discrimination would be permissible as well.

Feminists and other manhaters on the bench, meet the slippery slope. Slippery slope, meet the manhaters. I love it when these douchebags hang themselves with the rope men provide.

Exactly so.

"It guarantees only formal equality - the right of likes to be treated alike."

Weasel words if ever I heard them. The only way I can interpret them is that if the Court decides that men are not "like" women, it does not need to treat them equally. And guess what? Last time I looked, men are not like women at all! Too bad guys, you are just not sufficiently like women to be allowed onto the same exalted platform of rights that they enjoy. But it is all perfectly within the law and the Constitution. You just aren't reading them right. We can decide exactly how much equality we are prepared to entertain, and exactly where we decide we have had quite enough of it, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, pass me the sick bucket.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

Yeah, sex is a really expensive thing (for men). 15 minutes of fun may cost 18 years of child support slavery. Society pays too high price for women's pregnancy and such a situation cannot last long. Artificial womb will do the trick much cheaper.

----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:

Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction

"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."

J. Steinbeck.

...I thought of another way to look at this in terms of modern jurisprudence:

When it comes to reproduction, men aren't achieving "equality of outcomes", largely because they aren't "similarly situated". This has resulted in the denial of basic human rights for men (including equality under the law), and additional rights for women, paid for almost exclusively by men.

In the workplace, women weren't achieving "equality of outcomes", largely because they weren't "similarly situated" with our strength, risk tolerance and stamina. This has resulted in the denial of basic human rights for men (including equality under the law), and additional rights for women, paid for almost exclusively by men.

In schools, AAUW argued (on false pretenses) that women weren't achieving "equality of outcomes", largely because they weren't "similarly situated". This has resulted in the denial of basic human rights for boys and men, and additional rights for women, paid for almost exclusively by men.

Surely you see both the pattern and the grounds for a valid constitutional appeal to the Supreme Court: because men are being denied equal treatment and relief under the laws by the courts of the land, those courts are in fact violating men's right to equal protection under the law, because it is MEN who are not "similarly situated" in any matter relating to human or civil rights. Remember that study where participants were shown pictures of a crying child? They were asked to describe the emotions of the baby. Those who were told the baby was a girl described her as "sad". Those who were told the baby was a boy described him as "angry" (i.e. they assigned responsibility to the male child, but not the female child, even though the same picture was used in both cases). Women's activists are always listened to because they're magically "justified", no matter how outlandish their demands might be, whereas men's activists are dismissed as "nothing but a bunch of angry men"

In short, human beings are biologically programmed to react with misandry in ALL situations. It's not women who need the protection of the law from sexism, it's men.

This sort of appeal is not limited to Roe v. Wade for Men (notice that we don't even deserve a case with a name unique to men's concerns?) It's essentially universal, and could be prosecuted using ANY example of misandric bias in the law or the courts.

Our retarded justice systems are programmed to do only one thing, i.e. deny men rights, and grant woman additional rights, all at men's expense, even when it's men who are not achieving "equality of outcomes", largely because they're not "similarly situated".

I figure that would be the basis of any appeal to the Supreme Court, because all other cases would be automatically dismissed as "frivolous", because we're nothing but a bunch of "angry men". It has to be about unequal treatment under the law in general, not in terms of reproductive rights, but in terms of a demonstrable pattern of rulings (and human behavior) which clearly indicate a systemic, judicial bias against men whenever men seek relief from gender bias under state or federal law. It's extremely simple to demonstrate the pattern:

1) men or women complain of unequal treatment under the law
2) women's rights are increased, men's rights are decreased, and men are handed the bill, regardless of the gender of the complainant

In other words, when women aren't getting the same outcomes as men, the courts blame men, give women additional rights, and give men the bill, but when men aren't getting the same outcomes as women, the courts blame men, give women additional rights, and give men the bill. You might even say it's "human nature" to do so.

It's the doctrine of having to be "similarly situated" before being entitled to equal protection under the law that needs to be attacked.

It was kind of a given that the court would rule that the inequality during pregnancy was one rooted in biological differences, and that's not a completely fruitless arguement. To a degree it might be like a women's group demanding equal access to funds earmarked for prostate cancer research. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the arguement is fitting with the last few decades of logic.

This guy seriously screwed up by not citing the safe-haven laws correctly. Frankly it seems like the court used this loophole to avoid ruling on the issue. After birth, both parents are 'similarly situated'. It would be ironic if, in the attempt to protect women's rights, they had to give men the right to walk away from their kids, but they couldn't do that until the kid was born. Part of the reason for wanting it to occur during the pregnancy is so the woman can make an informed decision. Knowing if you have a partner to raise the kid with is probably one of the biggest factors in a woman deciding to have an abortion.

The human race is hard-wired to protect women while putting men at risk. This made sense in ancient times when it was essential to protect women and children while fighting off sabertoothed tigers, but is leading to horrific injustice in an age when physical strength no longer matters.

The women who batter men, for example, know that the police are only three numbers away, that they'll be there in seconds, and no matter what really happened, will believe whatever story she feeds them. So they really have no reason not to use their fists.

...that men are going to want to read before sticking their penis in one of these hateful misandrists that call themselves women. Be on the lookout for my next article that appears here. Hopefully Matt will approve it so men will be informed. I am willing to bet you won't be shocked at how far they are taking the fraudulent, anti-male rape hysteria that male bashers fuel.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

Men clearly deserve the right to decline fatherhood just like women can decline motherhood after giving birth by putting the child up for adoption. Even this lawyer states in her opinion that men and women are once again in 'similar standing' once the child is born... though that is obviously not the case under today's laws. If a precedent is to be set, then perhaps it needs to be made on the basis of adoption or safe haven laws (as previous posters have mentioned).

Another sad analogy to Roe V. Wade popped up in the news just yesterday. Back in the days before the Roe V. Wade decision, many women would pursue illegal "back-alley" abortions. In this story a man who is without legal rights to terminate his paternity, allegedly conspired to cause a woman he knocked up to have a miscarriage by slipping ground up RU-486 into her drinks. Now while I don't condone his actions, I do understand how he might have felt about the situation. Do we want to risk encouraging more of this sort of activity which is clearly dangerous and illegal or do we want to give men the same reproductive rights as women, something that would be in the interest of BOTH sexes.

Years upon years of men being socialized to "protect women" has crippled us. Women are never socialized this way. They are told they need to "be" protected and that they need to find a man "that has something." A woman will hardly ever stand up and die for a man. It just does not happen all that often.

Women -- like children -- will get men(See "Daddy") into a fight they(i.e. women) started and cheer men on from the sidelines. If they see dad(See Husband or Boyfriend) getting his ass kicked they will either get angry at "dad/the boyfriend/the husband" because he "can't fight" or start yelling "for someone else to help." The majority of women rarely jump in to fight the skirmishes they start. Instead they urge men to fight for them; they then berate men as "being too violent" afterwards. It's all a sick game women have been playing on men and the average dumb man goes for it time and time again.

I would love to see a woman get loud somewhere with a man and when he slaps her other men do nothing to help her. That's how men learn to "not talk shit when you can't back it up", women should learn the same.

Women consider a "good man" a man she can exploit financially and emotionally, while she sits around and whines about being "oppressed."

In other words women are narcisisstic creatures and their parents solidify that self-absorbed nature by telling them the world should cater to their needs. The adamant objection to men's rights only sheds light on this dynamic. Expect it to continue until men get some heart and learn to tell women -- and the courts -- to straighten their acts out.

----------

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek