J. Soltys's Weblog

January 26, 2009

A Great Argument For Father’s Abortion Rights

I’ve written about this inequity before, particularly how women expect men to sacrifice their rights in order to achieve equality, but at the same time, women refuse to accept any sacrifice when the situation is reversed. I’ve concluded the women’s rights movement has eroded into a selfish, immature, and sexist movement that advocates and promotes only the security, safety and well-being for women over the “equal” treatment of men, women, and children (including the unborn children).

Writer Tommy De Seno proves this in one of his most recent columns. Enjoy!


Roe vs. Wade and the Rights of the Father

By Tommy De Seno

The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion, but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.
–Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Today marks another anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which overturned all state laws that would stop a woman from having an abortion in the first trimester.

While the topic I have chosen here, “Roe vs. Wade and the Rights of the Father” may sound interesting, actually there is nothing to write about. There are no such rights.

(AP file photo)

(AP file photo)

A father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.

This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

Equal Rights for all people is difficult for any nation to achieve peaceably, because it requires the group in greater power to yield to the group of lesser power. This is usually accomplished only through war. Our own Civil War is a perfect example of equality being created by force, instead of reason and fairness, as it should have been.

This week as I watched and read opinions about Roe vs. Wade, I could find nothing, not a word among millions that addressed a father’s relationship to his unborn child.

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I wrote a column about gun control and posited that only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them most (when a burglar enters our home) and we get shot the most. Why shouldn’t men have the only voice on the issue?

I wanted to gauge people’s reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person’s view than another’s because that person can show the issue affects him more.

As I walked around my city during these past two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because they may be affected by it less than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn’t affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes.

Quite right indeed.

So where are all these well-reasoned arguments when it comes to a father and his unborn child? Why do people who have Equal Protection claims at the ready on other issues suddenly suffer constitutional amnesia when abortion is mentioned?

During every abortion a father’s child dies, so fathers are affected. There is much written about the post-abortion depression of women. Nothing is mentioned about the father. A good father knows his role is protector of his child. His depression must be crippling when the law allows him no chance to save his child from death by abortion.

In the Roe vs. Wade decision the Supreme Court found a privacy right in the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t have the word “privacy” in it. Then they found that the privacy right had a “penumbra” containing other rights (penumbra means the shadowy area at the edge of a shadow). In that shadow they found the abortion right. That bit of mental gymnastics aside, it wasn’t the most terrible part of the decision. This was:

The Court said that a woman my not be mentally ready to handle a child at this stage in her life, or the child might interfere with her career path, and that is so important to her that the State has no right to make a law against it.

So I ask today: Might a father find himself mentally not ready for a child? Might a father find a child inconvenient to his career path? If these are the rights women get to protect by choosing abortion, why not allow fathers “the right to choose” also?

I propose a “father’s abortion.” Let a father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child before or after the child’s birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.

As Justice Ginsburg said in the quote that appears at the top of this FOX Forum post, the emphasis is not abortion, rather an individual’s right to control his own reproduction. If we protect such a right for women, can we constitutionally deny it to men?

I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don’t exist.

“Father’s Abortion.” It’s high time for a test case.

Any father with such a case can call me and I’ll take it for free.

Read more from Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com.


September 4, 2008

Gloria Steinem Still A Clueless Hypocrite

Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin had less than twenty-four hours to let her national debut to the American public sink in before feminist Gloria Steinem was doing what she does best; being a hypocrite.

As an independent voter, I have watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions. But also, as an advocate for men’s issues, it becomes very critical for me to choose which candidate has an equal interest in men’s and father’s issues as they do women’s. I’ve concluded over the years that neither the liberals nor the conservatives have any real concern for men’s issues. Liberals scoff and laugh at the mere mention of males having issues, and the only thing men’s and father’s rights advocates have in common with conservatives is their disdain for feminism. After that, the majority of conservatives do a good job of dropping out of the picture where men and boys are concerned.

So as I read the morning media coverage of Sarah Palin’s speech, and took in the diversity of opinions about Sarah Palin, I came across an article by Steinem in the L.A. Times that was so ridicules that I had to write a rebuttal.
Steinem, of course, does not like Palin. You see, to Steinem and her cohorts, a successful, admirable, accomplished woman that has reached the status Palin has achieved in America’s patriarchy should only come from those women who are “reborn” and “saved” through Steinem’s feminist religious beliefs….Oops! I mean Steinem’s feminist teachings. It has become apparent that Steinem and her followers are guilty of the same practices she accuses the Republicans of engaging in.
Steinem writes:

This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.

Really? A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Choosing somebody just because they agree with your interests?
Steinem forgot to include how the bosses of the Democratic party chose an unqualified and untested Barack Obama only because they felt he had the best chance of winning the presidency; hence, trying to secure their own political interests. It’s hypocritical to accuse McCain of the same.
But ironically most of Steinem’s column is composed of her discussing how the Obama/Biden ticket and the Democratic Party are in-line with her own political interests. It is apparent from her writing that Steinem herself will only choose a candidate that will perpetuate HER beliefs and interests. And it is apparent that like McCain, she harbors the same “so what” attitude if her interests excludes the wants and needs of others.
You get the sense that Steinem obviously believes she is blessed with knowing what’s best for everyone. How ironic is it that this woman has spent most of her life pointing out the evils of only the male ego.

Steinem then says:

Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing

Steinem forgot to write how her own liberal democratic cohorts – who have vowed to fight hard for women and the abolishment of the traditional patriarchy – chose a male candidate over a female candidate, chose a male candidate that has less political experience and accomplishments than the female candidate, and tried forcing the female candidate to fold up her campaign in favor of the male candidate despite her gathering in excess of 18 million votes.
And even considering that McCain may have chosen Palin solely to gather the female vote, it would still be humiliating to the liberal democrats and their feminist cohorts that the male-dominated Republican Party would defeat the pro-women advocates, and enter the history books as the political party that was first for putting a female vice president in the White House.

Steinem continues with this comment:

To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

But does Steinem really mean it? After all, throughout her career she has fought and disparaged the institution of marriage. She is also attributed to saying, “A woman needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle”. So what has she done since then? Decided to get married.

But Steinem really shows her manipulation skills with this sentence:

I regret that people say she can’t do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn’t say the same about a father.

This is true. Palin has been subjected to this kind of gender discrimination, but this discrimination has overwhelmingly come from Steinem’s own liberal, Democratic cohorts – the same people who have always shamed others for this mentality.
Why didn’t she mention this in her article? Why do her cohorts get a break for their sexism? Steinem has fought this mentality all her life, in her speeches and her writings, but suddenly she’s at a struggle for words when it’s her own community showing sexist behavior, conjuring up only one sentence to address it.

Steinem then takes a shot a Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience:

I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

Sorry, but I may have missed something here. Where is Obama’s impeccable foreign policy experience? He has none. And if it is implied he will tap Biden’s experience, then she’s being a hypocrite. It shows she admits not only that Obama lacks foreign policy experience, but it also implies Obama – the commander and chief – will learn “on the job”. If she is comfortable with the Obama/Biden ticket doing this, then she must admit that it is more appropriate and more reasonable that Palin – the vice president – can learn “on-the-job” from her boss, John McCain, and his extensive years of foreign policy experience. This makes more sense to me.

Steinem continues:

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular

Isn’t this how most politicians get elected?

Steinem then attacks Palin on the issues:

she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation

Studies show that men are doing poorly in academics when compared to women, and as a result, statistics show men are more likely to drop out than women. But Steinem didn’t mention that her feminist cohorts consistently challenge any argument and statistics that show boys and men are in an academic crisis, nor did she mention that her cohorts have consistently challenged any institutional changes and resources that would be used exclusively to help boys and men in academics, nor did she mention that she and her cohorts have argued and advocated for the exact opposite for women and girls to this very day, even after the “girl’s academic crisis” back in the 1990’s was found to be a feminist fraud.

[The right wing are] the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom.

How hypocritical that she attacks the political right for challenging women’s reproductive freedom when she and her cohorts have done everything in their power to deny men the same for years.
Men have challenged a women’s right to abortion, arguing that if the law recognizes them as an equal in the biological creation of the child – and therefore must assume equal legal responsibility for the child – then men should have a legal say whether or not they are ready to assume this responsibility, which would include an equal legal right whether to abort or have the child. This “reproductive equality” infuriates feminist like Steinem. The thought that men should have the same reproductive rights as women is disturbing to them. The majority of feminist believe men should only assume the responsibility for pregnancies, and women should assume the legal rights. This is why feminist have labeled men with the saying, “men think with their penises” and to the contrary gave women the mantra, “my body, my choice”. It seems hypocritical to empower women with a mantra to assume responsibility to kill an unborn child, but that same mantra is never used to empower women not to get pregnant in the first place. If Sarah Palin’s abstinence programs failed at avoiding unwanted pregnancies, so be it. But at least her program teaches responsibility rather than running from it. You see, Steinem and her feminist cohorts have done a great job advocating and securing for women the right to an abortion, access to the morning after pills, and safe haven laws all in an effort to help women avoid parental responsibility. At the same time, her and her cohorts have worked over-time enacting laws to incarcerate, humiliate, and shame men who try to avoid their parental responsibility.
This is Steinem’s and the liberal Democrat’s version of reproductive rights – to ensure that total control of the lives of the fathers and the unborn are determined solely by the woman.
Steinem and other feminist vocalize the fear of someone else (government) intruding and trying to control the lives of women, while at the same time ignoring how they have subjugated men and the unborn to the exact same treatment.

Are you ready for the most ridicules quote by Steinem?

As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself.

Does she expect me to swallow this load of crap?
Here is a woman who is implying that Palin’s decision to allow the shooting of animals from a helicopter is an unconscionable and nefarious act which truly displays Palin’s character.
Steinem can’t sleep well at night knowing a woman like this may be in the White House, but she will get up bright and early to campaign for an Obama/Biden White House which will include unequivocal support for a woman’s right to scrap and tear an innocent, voiceless, unborn child from her womb, or inject the unborn child with chemicals that eat through it’s flesh until death occurs. The remains are put in a plastic bag, and then tossed in a dumpster with the rest of the trash.
Under the Obama/Biden/Steinem ticket, this procedure will happen over a million times a year, which studies show, is done mostly by women to avoid parental responsibility.
Which nefarious policy is harder to swallow?

But Steinem’s hypocrisy really comes through at the end of the article. She writes:

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

To put this in perspective, let’s take a look at Sarah Palin’s husband Todd.
Todd is the one who actually does most of the traditional “women’s” work for the Palin household, which in turn, allows his wife to pursue her career ambitions.
According to an interview last year, Sarah Palin said, “He takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer…He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He’s able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine.”
When Todd worked in the oil industry, his work became a conflict with Sarah’s political ambitions – so HE quit his job.

Here is a look at the candidates Steinem supports.
Senator Obama’s wife Michelle had a great career going for herself. However, she quit her job so her husband could pursue his.
Joe Biden should be honored for the way he cared for his children after his first wife’s tragic death in 1972. But his current wife Jill has said even if the Obama/Biden ticket wins, she will continue her job of teaching, and try to juggle both jobs of career and family as she did during the primaries while her husband was away.

So let’s put this all together: Sarah Palin is a woman who is independent, self-assured, successful, has shown she can compete with men on any level, has a husband that does most of the domestic duties at home so his wife can pursue her career ambitions, has constructed a life so far removed from the traditional patriarchy, and instead, built one that is the closest we have seen to traditional feminist ideology.
But Steinem is going to support the Obama/Biden ticket, whose lives mimic traditional patriarchy to its very core, even though their ticket goes against everything she stands for and has fought for.

So why the beef with Palin? It’s simple: Sarah Palin is independent, strong, family oriented, carves her own path in life, refuses to care what anybody thinks of her, makes up her own mind about what’s important to her, takes responsibility for her choices, and isn’t afraid to get in touch with her masculine side.

You see, the main reason why Steinem doesn’t like Palin is because Palin is more of a feminist than she is.



June 12, 2008

Answering My Critics

After I wrote my two part article on why sexism was not a reason Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for president, it was picked up by Fox News. This sent my average daily blog numbers skyrocketing. In its wake, I was left with many negative comments, most of them coming in the e-mail form rather than being posted in the comment section at the end of the article. I guess people do not like to see their darker side displayed in a public forum. It seems it is so much easier to write, “J. Soltys, Fuck You!” in a private e-mail instead of displaying it in a public forum in order to protect one’s “good girl” image.

But I promise not to let myself get sidetracked to often on differences of opinion like this. What I mean is that I have a personal rule I follow when posting an article. And that is to let comments that are posted in response to my articles go without debate by me.
The main reason I do this is out of respect for fairness and true equality. I reason that if I have the opportunity to write my thoughts, feelings, and opinions in this forum, then I must honor those that either agree or disagree, and allow their thoughts and opinions to be expressed without interference. I have the power to block or remove any comment, but I choose not to do so unless it is filled with vulgarity, or links to what I feel are disturbing websites.
The exception to my interference would be if an individual placed misleading or inaccurate information about a topic that I felt needed a rebuttal. Then I would challenge something that is posted in the comments section.
E-mails sent to me I assume are meant to be private conversation between me and that person. However, anything that comes into my mailbox is essentially my property and I have a right to use it if I feel it is worth sharing. In most cases however, I will not.

Another reason I do not respond to countering opinions on my blog is because I’ve seen on other bloggers get easily trapped into a “pissing contest” with some people. It consumes most of the bloggers time, and in the end, the blog suffers because of it. I’ve never seen a good outcome for either the instigator or the blogger. Therefore I take a casual approach, and let others have their say, and leave it to the reader make up his or her opinion.

This is one of those times when I am going to break my own rule. Some of the criticism I received was way out of line, and I feel it needs serious rebuttal. In fact, I’m wondering if some actually read what I wrote because it appears their criticism contradicts what I wrote.

Most of the harshest criticism of me and my article came in the e-mail form. And most of it can be summed up this way:
You are:
sexist, misogynist, hypocrite, women hater, caveman, idiot, jerk, stupid, asshole, just like all the rest, no better, etc., etc., etc.
In response to those people, yes. At times I have been accused of all those things, but the charges never seem to stick.

Now that the easy part is out of the way, let’s get to those that actually put some serious thought into their responses and tried to argue that I was somehow missing the bigger picture.

This response was from Dee in the comments section:

I am no hillary, fan, but I am a black american and it really pains me to read the hate trash that people like you write. As a woman I would think that you do not owe hillary anything but as a woman you do owe the gender a little respect when someone is doing their best. No hillary is not perfect, but I have never read or heard her speak so negatatively and hateful against another woman as you and the media and other bloggers trying to make a name for him or herself regardless of whom is hurt.

Thanks for your opinion Dee, but I’m sure you realize I will have to disagree.
To sum up your response: I wrote something really offensive, not just about Hillary but about the female gender in general. And in doing so, I disrespected women. You also say Hillary is not perfect, just human, and that I’m just trying to make a name for myself.

First, let me talk about my ego and trying to make a name for myself. I started writing about gender issues from the male perspective about one year ago. At that time I had my own website, but chose this platform for convenience. After a year of doing this, I can tell you that it is not a path to fame and fortune. If I wanted fame and fortune, I would have tried out for the television show American Idol or Apprentice, or have stayed up late one night and had my choice of choosing what program I was going to use to “make a million dollars in one month with no money down” from the many late night infomercials. I can assure you those paths seem an easier road to fame and fortune rather than writing about gender issues on a blog.
I do this because I believe I have an opinion to offer. Not always the right opinion, but not always the wrong one either. I offer an opinion from the male perspective on gender issues because feminism has generated many unjustified and unqualified negative perceptions of men and masculinity. The negative image of men and fathers has been entrenched in society for some time now; some of it is understandable, but a good portion is also just irresponsible. If the genders were reversed, these irresponsible images and portrayals would cause outrage from coast to coast. But since the negative images are of men and fathers, nobody really cares. However, a small band of brothers like myself have taken to writing about these negative stereotypes, the contradictions, and the hypocrisies displayed by feminism and society, and offer a countering opinion to the general public.

I had no intention of writing about Hillary’s loss. As I mentioned in the article, I wrote about her last year, but what I didn’t mention was that I promised not to write about her anymore. The reason being; I didn’t want to seem like I was piling on her as she began stumbling more and more in the presidential race. I chose to let Hillary and her actions stand alone, for better or for worse, so she could have the decency to be judge the same as anybody else.
And I want to note that during my podcasts at the beginnings of the primary race, both my partner Jim (a staunch conservative) and me, pointed out how we felt Hillary was the strongest candidate and deserved the nomination. We also acknowledged the few times when we thought Hillary was facing criticism that WAS related to her gender.

With that being said, the only reason I wrote about Hillary’s loss NOW, is because SHE and her supporters chose to blame sexism and a misogynist society for her loss. It is at this point that Hillary and her supporters brought the criticism upon themselves. As I mentioned before, I do not have to go out looking for a battle, but it sure seems to me, as a writer of gender issues from a male perspective, that I do not have to wait long before somebody wants to blame men or fathers for events that may well be caused their own irresponsibility. When this happens, and I find it irresponsible, I will challenge it. And this is one of those cases.

You say I owe the female gender a little respect. I never attacked women as a gender anywhere in the articles. But if you want to make a case that I did, then the argument is thrown back at you: Where is the respect for men as a gender when Hillary and her supporters choose to blame men for all her failures? In the name of equality, don’t women need to offer men the same respect in return? As a man, are you saying I owe women unconditional respect, but women do not have to offer men the same in return? Women can place blame, hate, and scorn upon men without any criticism, and men should just stay silent and not speak up? Are you asking me to do what numerous women were subjected to under historical patriarchy? Are you asking me to do what you and millions of other women would never do – stay silent? I thought the women’s movement made it clear this behavior is extremely sexists?
If these are the rules, then I’ll be breaking them quite often, because I refuse to remain silent.

Another point: I personally did treat Hillary as an individual. As I mentioned earlier, when she began stumbling in the race, I backed off my criticism and let her stand on her own. But here’s my thought: If treating people as individuals is important, then why can’t you and her supporters do the same for men? If there were individual men who treated her with disrespect, then why lump them together with all men and use blanket statements such as “misogynist” and “sexism” that generalize men and society as inherently evil? Will this behavior help break down negative stereotypes and breed the individualism you seek? Of course not. It only makes it worse.

And I’m still not sure where I wrote hateful trash. Asking a presidential candidate to take responsibility for his/her contradiction, lies, or other failures is hateful? What male presidential candidate – or seated president – hasn’t been challenged the same way? President Bush deals with it every day.
And why is my challenging Hillary’s perceptions, and those of her supporters, that sexism and misogyny are probably not the main reasons she lost – using accurate and credible information – hateful trash? Are you saying because I’m a man, and her being a woman, I do not get to challenge what I felt were female sexist comments? Have we just encountered an evolving “female privilege” in society?

And finally, how have I deployed hatred by writing that in spite of Hillary’s missteps, she still secured the popular vote, showing how this country is actually not as sexist as some people have vocalized (Note: This fact itself greatly diminishes the validity of their sexism argument.), but more importantly, Hillary’s bid left an unequivocal positive mark by showing how far women and our nation have come by concluding this country is ready for a female president. This was hateful? Why, because I felt Hillary will not be the one?
Thanks for writing Dee, but as I said previously, I will have to agree to disagree with you.

Then there was Bob. He agreed with me about Hillary’s screw ups, but he became angry at my linking her irresponsibility to feminism. He wrote:

You’re very clear on the things Clinton has done wrong. But what do you mean by feminism? How are you possibly linking Clinton’s actions with actions of any feminist? Are you referring to French feminism and it’s concentration on how language promotes sexism? Or maybe you’re referring to Post Colonial feminism? Or maybe you really don’t know anything about feminism and instead are creating a definition based on popular ideas you were too lazy to research? Maybe you should start with Wikipedia and find out what feminism is really about.

He then goes on to say I really don’t know what the hell I’m talking about (Re:Full of shit).
Well Bob got part of it right. I knew when I wrote the article I was writing it from a perspective that would have needed another page to explain why I feel her blaming others is typical of feminism. But since I write to a particular audience that is familiar with my work, I chose to ignore an in-depth analysis. So when Fox News highlighted my article, it became a problem, since all these new readers were not familiar with my opinions.

But, since you asked Bob, let me explain.
First, yes I have read Wikipedia’s definition for “feminism”. As a matter of fact, I’ve read many articles on feminism, women, men, and genders over the last 10 years.
I was actually at one time a supporter of women’s rights and feminism. I even had a long term relationship with a woman who was a member of NOW. But over the years I came to find the writings, research, and opinions of feminist to be contradictory, hateful, blaming, distorted, and heavily biased.
And sadly, these distorted perceptions became very influential. I wish I had a dollar for every woman who has said she is not a feminist but then rattled off an opinion that came straight from feminist ideology.
So you are right that I may not know in explicit detail what feminism is, but it is dangerous to say that I cannot express my personal experiences concerning how I feel feminism has affected myself and others. If you really believe that one cannot express their thoughts without explicit and unequivocal objectivity, then feminism itself would not exist, for women would have been banned from expressing how the patriarchy subjugated them without first having an intense academic study in the understanding of men and masculinity. That would be nearly impossible for the average woman to achieve. And the civil rights movement would not have progressed to where it has today because African-Americans would not have been able to speak out about white privileged unless they possessed a PhD in the study of “Caucasians”.
Neither group needed such an intense pedagogy, nor winded exegesis of the masses, to personally express and instigate a correction to what they felt was the devaluing of their humanity. My blog is nothing more than my expression of my experiences with men, women, and gender, and the ability to share theses thoughts with a larger community. I’m sorry you came to my blog expecting to find a documentary of intense and unequivocal verity. I usually read blogs for what they are meant to be – opinions.

As for why I feel feminism is contradictory, and blaming of others? It is a belief I’ve developed after reading numerous feminists writings and research. If you spent some time reading this literature, it becomes apparent that when given similar circumstances, men have nobody to blame but themselves, while women have the freedom to blame anyone else, most often men and the patriarchy. Hillary’s allegation was a prime example.
Here are some quick examples of what I’m talking about:

  • Feminist abhor male violence, particularly men’s obsession with war. They vehemently detest the killing of so many innocent lives, and label it as probably one of the most irresponsible acts of masculinity. However, under the guidance of femininity, abortion and the killing of over 3000 innocent children a day is protected and held in adulation as one of the defining moments and an important fundamental of a woman’s right. However, in feminist writings, I have found numerous references that women would not need abortion if “men could keep it in their pants”. In other words, it’s not really a woman’s fault she became pregnant and needed and abortion; it’s really the man’s fault. Or another argument is that if men didn’t run from their responsibilities and leave women to raise children alone, then abortion would not be needed. And it is this argument that carries more weight than others, and addresses a serious problem of some men who abandon their parental responsibilities. But there is an ugly flaw in this argument. It implies that when men refuse to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, it usually involves abandoning their children, but leaves evidence to the fact that at least the child is given a chance at life. Consequently, research shows that the majority of women who choose abortion, do so to escape the responsibility of parenthood, deciding that killing the child to avoid this responsibility is the best option.
    My point is not to debate whether abortion should remain legal or not, but instead, I bring it up to show the different perceptions concerning the responsibility towards male and female killing of innocent lives, and the responsibility towards pregnancy and parental responsibility through the eyes of feminist. When men and women are found in similar situations, men are easily blamed without discourse, while immediate discourse emerges to explain why women should not be blamed. As one writer put it, “Women are diagnosed, men are demonized.”
  • Feminist have contended that when ever a woman is charged with domestic violence, it is only because she was defending herself from her abuser.
    More and more research is now showing women instigate violence in a relationship as much as men, so it disturbs me to find feminist still rushing in to blame the man when a woman is charged with domestic violence, in spite of this evidence. And more importantly, feminists have assiduously demanded that blaming the victim is an abhorrent practice and should be stopped. So why are they so comfortable engaging in this practice themselves? Are they saying to blame the victim is wrong when the victim is a woman, but acceptable when the victim is a man? Again we see blame and responsibility disseminated by feminist in a discriminating manner.
  • Back in the 1990’s, feminist reported that females were struggling in our schools due to sexist and discriminatory practices. It was reported that girls suffered terribly from self-esteem problems due to these practices, and this effected how they performed in school. In other words, old man patriarchy (men) was to blame.
    Later it was discovered their research was extremely flawed, and it was actually males performing worse than the girls except in the areas of math and science. And it was discovered self-esteem does not have a powerful effect on scholastic performance as believed. Black males report the highest ratings of self-esteem, yet are some of the nation’s weakest scholastic performers.
    So how have some feminist reacted to these findings? First, they have offered no apologies for their lack of honesty, and second, quite a few have shrugged off poor male performance as not a serious issue needing to be addressed, citing inherent male laziness as the problem.
    So the situation started with feminist blaming males, and then upon further inspection, it was found they lied, and they responded to their indiscretions not by apologizing, but by blaming males again!

I could go on, there is plenty more, but I hope you get the point Bob. If not, stick around. I’ll be doing this for a while, in spite of the fact you think I’m full of shit.

As I said before, I may not always be right, but I’m not always wrong either. As humans we are naturally flawed. This means that what ever we construct, it will be embedded with these flaws. Men are flawed, just as much as women are. The patriarchy has been proven to be flawed by feminist and others, so I’m not sure why feminist have demanded the belief that their movement is free from mistakes and injustices. To believe otherwise is not just illogical, but it also implies superiority over men. That in itself is sexist, along with the idea that men cannot challenge the thoughts and opinions of feminism and find its flaws.

Since I’ve been accused of not having a true understanding of feminism, let me offer an opinion by somebody who does.
Rebecca Walker is the founder of the Third Wave Foundation, a feminist group that works nationally to support young women and transgender activists. She had this to say in her article at CNN:

Obama has gracefully accepted the victory banner, and a lot of Hillary supporters, especially women, are walking off the field as if they’ve lost a war. I understand their frustration, but the truth is they didn’t lose, not by a long shot. Their candidate is stronger than ever, with 17 million votes under her belt, and the public discussion about the role of gender is more nuanced and compelling than it has been in decades.
It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility. It’s time to empower the feminisms embodied by millions of women and men who care about everyone, including, but not limited to, women.

Not much difference between my thoughts and hers. And as I have done often, I highlight feminist thoughts and opinions I think are fair and balanced.

I stand by what I wrote. I’m done with this debate.

March 16, 2008

In the News…


It must be the end of the week. This means I must share the stories I’ve come across over the last week that I found interesting in some way.

(Note: Concerning some emails I’ve received: Do not take all my comments literally. I impose a great amount of sarcasm in these news articles. Sometimes I am serious, and sometimes I am not. But I will not “tag” each piece so others can figure out which is which. That wouldn’t be much fun.)

Gender Issues 

Robbing the Hearts of Men

Here is an article written by a feminist that surprised me – until I had time to think about it. Written by a woman calling herself “PortlyDyke” she engages her readers in compassion for men and what issues they face on a daily bases concerning the emotional limitations society…ooops, misogyny allows them to express. This is where me and her diverge.

She expresses quite well that how to be a “real” man in society means to “shut up” and deal with it. She correctly explains the paradox men are in; express yourself and watch ridicule and shame follow, and yet at the same time, you are told your problems arise from you not expressing your feelings.

But as usual, feminist refuse to accept any blame or responsibility for how they helped create the very environment in which this happens. She blames it all on men and masculinity. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

The feminist movement has been well known to be filled with hatred and contempt for men. It has created an environment where women’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being has been advocated to have more value and a greater priority than men and boys. Feminism has done a great job of convincing society that any hardships men face are not nearly as difficult has the ones women face. And any sexism, discrimination, or unfair sacrifices men face, are justified/payback for the years oppressing women. In their book, “two wrongs make a right”. And to think, this vicious mentality comes the very people who believe THEY are better suited to teach our society’s children the concepts of fairness and equality.
For all their whining and crying about the patriarchy perceiving anything feminine as being “wrong”, and how destructive and dangerous this is, it is always with great humor that I find them so ignorant of their own belief that masculinity is inferior to femininity, and only they, and their idealized vision of a ‘real” man, created with the infusion of copious amounts of femininity, can produce superior men.
Now, who do you think is more dangerous? 

In spite of this, it was nice to see some acknowledgement of men and their feelings from a feminist. However, feminism is built on the ideology that any compassion shown for men automatically makes one less of a feminist, and that in turn will risk virulent attacks from the “sisterhood”. My belief that feminism shuns compassion for men is proven by the second column PortlyDyke. This piece covers the response and emails received from what she assumes were other feminist attacking her for showing compassion for men and their issues, and insinuating that feminism may be partly responsible. In this column (scroll down to “I’ll Do It“), I got the feeling she is apologizing for her column about men, and trying to re-establish her standing and credibility within the feminist sisterhood.
You be the judge.
(Note: In the second column she write about living in a “manless” community where no men were allowed in. Take notice how their sexism is justified, but men’s sexism is dangerous. She validates many of my beliefs.)

‘I was terrified I would never bond with my baby’

Another column written by a woman, and another one that attacks men in various spots (I’ve grown used to the fact that many female writers cannot write about gender related issues without taking cheap shots at men. That’s one of the reasons I do what I do. It’s done in the name of “equality”. As I wrote above, feminist have instilled the belief that two wrongs make a right. So in defense of MY cheapshots towards women, I justify it by saying “I’m getting in touch with my feminine side!”).

What I like about this one is that this female writer/mother drops the “woman are natural martyrs” ideology, and comes clean with her “unnatural” feelings after the birth of her first child. I am moved by her honesty. More interesting, is how she points out the many times she felt ignored and neglected by many females in the healthcare system. I can actually relate to her story. When my twin boys were born, my wife and I experienced many female MD’s and RN’s that displayed the “I could care less” attitude towards my wife, our boys, and me. The standard belief is that females are much more compassionate than males, particularly in healthcare. I work in healthcare, and I can assure you this is the greatest myth out there.

Anyway, read her story and formulate your own thoughts.

Human Remains Found in Dumpster of Abortion Clinic

I included this story because it goes quite well the other stories today. It concerns the contents found in a dumpster behind an abortion clinic. The story states, “body parts of aborted babies, bio-hazardous materials and patients’ medical records were found earlier this month.”

I’ve written before how I’m surprised the matriarchy of the women’s rights movement is obsessed with how the male patriarchy has harmed women in various ways, but they sleep well at night, ignorant in the ways their advocacy has hurt others.

This story reiterates the reality of carelessness and indolence in female dominated healthcare fields that I mentioned above. For me, it also raises awareness as to why we don’t question the validity of so many women’s rights organizations that claim to be the saviors of our children. Killing over three thousand unborn children a day in the matriarchy-based abortion profession and claiming to be emotional about the welfare of children is the most absurd hypocrisy I know of.

I’ve included a link to the video showing what was found in the dumpster. I am not a zealous anti-abortion advocate. I just believe since women have consistently over the years made every attempt to display various forms of male violence perpetrated on females in various avenues of media, why can’t we show the realities of everyday female violence perpetrated upon the innocent in the name of equality?
Here is the video.   (caution: the ending gets graphic)

From “Fighting the myth Men are Monsters, Women are Martyrs’ Files”:

Boys, 4, cuffed for refusing nap: Parents of two four-year-old boys in New York are suing officials after their sons were allegedly handcuffed for refusing to take a nap. Lawyer Scott Agulnick says a substitute teacher took Jaden Diaz and Christopher Brito to an empty classroom. Then, a school safety officer allegedly entered the room, cuffed the boys’ wrists – and told them they would never see their parents again.

Masculinity’s oppression of women starts early doesn’t it? Good thing they were able to control it quickly. 

Baker Sheriff: Woman Borrows Gun From Neighbor, Kills HusbandA woman is charged with the shooting death of her husband before dawn Monday in their home south of Macclenny, according to the Baker County Sheriff’s Office. Investigators said Meloney Jackson borrowed a gun from a neighbor, entered the house in the 7000 block of John Rowe Street and shot Kevin Jackson. Bill Krall, owner of Hole In The Wall Antiques Guns and Ammo, said Jackson came into his store last Thursday to buy a gun. “She was telling me how her husband had threatened her and they were going to court on Tuesday, and she needed a gun right now,” Krall said.

Oh, by the way, divorcing your wife is now a symptom of battered woman syndrome. It’s not her fault, he deserved it.

Burned alive for “not washing feet: A Chinese bride burned her new husband to death after he got into bed after a drunken argument without washing his feet, state media reported on Wednesday.

This is not the whole story. He also left the toilet seat up, left his socks on the floor, and didn’t put his dishes in the sink. These behaviors are also consistent with abuses that lead to battered women syndrome. Another man who deserved it.

Wife of Soldier Serving in Iraq Charged With Starving Their Infant Daughter to Death: The wife of a soldier deployed in Iraq is charged with killing their 11-month-old daughter after the infant was found starved to death in their littered home on the Fort Leonard Wood Army post, authorities said. An autopsy found that Alexis most likely died from dehydration, starvation and malnutrition the day before she was found.

Killing a child in the womb or outside the womb – what’s the difference. My feminine side tells me the most important thing to ask is, “Is SHE OK?”

Mother Barred From Seeing 12-Year-Old Son Charged With Murder After Telling Him to Commit Suicide: The mother of a 12-year-old boy charged with killing a Broward County toddler was ordered to stay away from her son Thursday. Broward County Circuit Judge Charlie Kaplan issued the order after employees at the juvenile detention center overheard Guerla Joseph encourage the boy to kill himself. The mother was also heard telling the boy that his situation was comparable to the persecution of Jesus.

She also wants to be called Mother Mary-Kevorkian in the future.

Tests Show Children Ingested Crack: A woman was charged with four counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child Thursday after admitting she gave children in her care crack cocaine, police said. Tasha Cole, 17, took her child to the emergency room on Wednesday when the 2-year-old starting having seizures. During routine tests at the hospital, crack cocaine was found in the child’s system, according to court documents.

It’s not her fault. The government took away all those over-the-counter children’s medicines. She was left with no choice. Damn this patriarchal society!

Woman Apologizes For Reporter Attack: One of the women charged with attacking an Upstate television reporter earlier this week said she is sorry for what happened and did not use racial slurs against the news crew. Billie Joe Taylor told WSPA-TV that her family was under a great deal of stress dealing with the killing of a relative Tuesday, a few hours before the attack on reporter Charmayne Brown happened. Taylor said she hopes Brown and the community can accept her apology. The reporter and other witnesses of the attack said the four people, all white, yelled racial slurs and profanities before the attack and as they hit the reporter and cameraman, who are both black.

Apologize! Where is Gloria Steinem to defend this woman and educate those involved that white women have been oppressed on a much greater scale than black people?

Video: Woman Attacks Clerk Over Cup of CoffeeA woman distraught over having to pay for a cup of coffee she poured down the drain, refused to pay and began attacking the clerk.

Obviously he doesn’t know women make only 82 cents to every man’s dollar. She’ll pay when this damn discrimination ends.

Fairmont Woman Accused of Having Sex with Teen Boy: The Marion County Sheriff’s Department has arrested a Kingmont woman. Deputies charged Rachel Dawn Watkins with sexual assault in the third degree. The criminal complaint says Watkins admitted to having sex with a 14 year old boy two times last month. Watkins, 31 is out of jail after posting a $10,000 bond.

Gates woman sentenced to six months in jail for sex with teenage boys: A Gates mother of three who pleaded guilty to having sex with two teenage boys will do six months in jail. Today a judge sentenced Dena Greene and also gave her 10 years of intensive probation. She’s also required to register as a level-one sex offender. In December, Greene admitted to having sex with a 15-year-old boy last summer. Today in court Greene apologized.
She said, “I’m sorry for the entire incident. I’d like to apologize to the people and the families. I wish I could take it all back but I can’t.”

Video: Team Mom Charged for Having Sex With Basketball Players: Mother charged with having sex with one of the players on her son’s basketball team.

Hey, give her a break. She said she was just taking one for the team.

Florida Middle School Teacher Charged for Sex With 14-Year-Old Student: A Hillsborough County middle school teacher has been arrested and is charged with having sex with a 14-year-old student. According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Ragusa had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy at Davidsen Middle School from October of 2006 to May of 2007.

You see it’s true guys. Helping your woman around the house DOES leave them more time to enjoy sex. It’s just not with you.

Louisiana Mother Says Revenge-Seeking Woman Tortured, Killed Her Baby: A mother whose 6-week-old baby died after being burned, beaten and drugged says she thinks the motive was revenge, a Bogalusa newspaper reports. The child’s mother, Lindsey Daigle, 19, told The Daily News she believes Amy Leighanne Thomas, 22, harmed the baby after finding out that Daigle had tattled on Thomas for taking something from a co-worker’s locker. Investigators have said the infant was beaten on the head, singed with a curling iron and drugged. Thomas was arrested Wednesday, and police said she confessed to the crime.

Woman Drove Into Crowd Outside Nightclub, Police Say: An 18-year-old woman is in custody, accused of purposely driving her car into a group of people outside a nightclub. Police said the woman drove into a crowd outside Club Onyx, at 3120 W. Villard Ave., around 1 a.m. Sunday. Two 24-year-old men were hit, but not seriously injured, when the woman drove into the crowd, backed up, and drove into the group a second time, according to reports.

We all know women are fragile, vulnerable people with prodigious hearts. They are not inherently violent. The real question is, what did these men do to this poor woman that forced her to act this way?





Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

February 14, 2008

The “Liberties” of Female Violence


Has anyone noticed the way we in society defend various forms of female violence, but are disturbed greatly by various forms of male violence?

This phenomenon is being played out in Berkeley California, where the city council made an attempt to run the Marine Corp. recruiters out of town. This was an attempt by the city council to take their anti-war stance to the next level.

It was working quite well at first, gaining national attention after the city council austerely proclaimed the recruiters are “not welcomed in this city“. The council then proceeded to grant the anti-war/feminist protest group, Code Pink, the right to a privileged parking space in front of the Marine recruiting office once a week, and a sound permit allowing the group extraordinary protest rights to assist the city in its efforts to drive the Marines out of town. The council also was trying to force the recruiters out by declaring the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is a violation of Berkeley’s anti-discrimination policy towards gay and lesbians. Also on the agenda was addressing zoning changes for recruiting stations which would declare recruitment offices could not be opened within 600 feet of residential districts, public parks, public health clinics, public libraries, schools or churches. Rounding out this arduous “anti-war proclamation” was the city council advising the Marines that “if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests.”

But then things turned sour for Berkeley.  U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina viewed Berkeley’s actions as  “a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families.” He then met Berkeley’s bold rhetoric and actions with a little of his own. He acknowledged Berkeley has a right to their beliefs, but with that right comes a responsibility. He began measures to ensure that if Berkeley wanted to continue to protest the government, then Berkeley would have to finance it on their own. He began a process to withdraw about 2 million dollars of federal money slated for Berkeley. Suddenly Berkeley’s city council was feeling “unwelcome”. 

In a heated show down which drew anti-war and pro-military supporters, Wednesday the Berkeley city council voted 7-to-2 that the Marines could stay. According to CNN, “the council said it would no longer send a letter to the local Marine Corps Recruiting Station and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway saying recruiters aren’t welcome in Berkeley.”

I guess it’s true: Money talks and bullshit walks.

But this is not the whole story.

The hypocrisy at work here would be hilarious if it wasn’t so real. Code Pink is not only a feminine anti-war protest group, but also a group that supports a woman’s right to an abortion. Just as recently as last month, members of Code Pink joined other women’s rights organizations in our nation’s capital to celebrate and defend a woman’s right to kill her unborn fetus.

I find it amazing how Berkeley, feminist, women, and society in general view female violence upon innocent lives differently from that of similar male violence. Men’s wars are viewed as testosterone driven violence, foolish in its ideology, in its conception, in its implementation, and appalling in its consequences. The innocent lives lost in these wars are labeled terrible tragedies. However, men’s wars cannot begin to equal the body count per year of the innocent, defenseless lives lost through the estrogen driven “liberty” of abortion.

Since the Iraq war began, it is estimated that 1.7 million people have lost their lives. This includes coalition forces and civilians (And I’m even being really nice here because I used stats from an anti-war organization – giving the advantage to the anti-war protesters). However, in that same time period, the estrogen fueled abortion machine killed almost 7 million innocent lives – in the U.S. alone!

So where is the outrage in Berkeley and elsewhere over the tragic lose of these innocent lives? There are a handful of abortion clinics in and around Berkeley, but not one city council member body is sticking his or her neck out to give anti-abortion protesters free parking spaces, permits, and other beneficial protesting tools to eradicate the senseless killing of these helpless lives. And how does Code Pink get away with such hypocrisy? 

During their support of Roe vs. Wade last month, Liz Hourican, a Code Pink member, was asked this very question. According to a report from Cybercast News Service, Liz philosophized the organizations “war vs. abortion” position like this:

With regard to the war and this issue, it’s very much the same thing. This is about basic human rights – standing here and being able to take care of women. Take care of women first. This is my body. I should have the decision over my body.”

Her argument that war and abortion is the same thing holds true – both take numerous innocent lives. So why establish one and try to eradicate the other? It’s simple; their true mission is not to end senseless killings, it’s about power, control, the female ego, and gender politics.

Code Pink, as well as other feminist and their supporters perceive abortion as a tool of liberation and freedom for women. When men kill in the name of freedom and liberty it’s perceived as masculine brutality. When women kill innocent lives, it is perceived as a human rights issue, the freedom to make choices concerning a woman’s well-being. It’s about liberation.

Pink’s hypocrisy reveals their protests are really about the female ego – the perception of females as having superior qualities over men to make life and death decisions. This is apparent in their obvious belief that when men kill, it is truly evil; it is a display of rage, selfishness, and nefarious hedonism. But when women choose to kill, it is about something greater. It’s truly about sacrifices made for a greater good. In other words, they have “good reasons” for their actions. 

Therefore, their cause can now be seen for what it actually is – an issue of power and control – an egomaniacal assumption that they and other women have a superior ability over men in these same situation. The need to wrestle power away from men, and place the rights and well-being of women first – as Liz so unequivocally points out – which translates into discarding the rights and well-being of men, children, and others that stand in their way . Under the Code Pink matriarchy, killing is a right reserved for women only, and should be defined only by women. Only they can do it for the greater good.

The real tragedy here is how we as a society have let Code Pink and other feminist define female violence as some sort of “benevolent violence”. This is not only seen in the “war vs. abortion argument”, but also in other societal tragedies. Whether it is mothers killing their children, or wives killing their husbands, female violence is endowed with numerous excuses to placate a woman’s violent actions – and sadly, society buys into it. For men, as we see, their violence is devoid of those same excuses.

I could care less about whether someone is pro-abortion or anti-abortion, pro-military or anti-war. My point is, when  someone begins to tell me how awful war is, and I find this individual thinks the killing of thousands of unborn children everyday is not a priority, I know I’m dealing with someone who has a distorted view of life and death.

Therefore, their words, and their cause, falls on deaf ears. 


U.S. Senator Wants to Revoke Funding From City of Berkeley, Calif., for Vote to Boot Marines

Berkeley City Council Moderates Anti-Marine Position

Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Anti-War Code Pink Rallies with Pro-Abortion Protesters

Casualties in Iraq



Photo Courtesy of Geek Philosopher

January 22, 2008

35 Years of Roe vs. Wade – A Celebration?


      Today marks the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion.
In my writings I have used abortion in such ways as to give the impression that I am totally against it. However, I am not. I respect a woman’s right to an abortion, but it doesn’t mean I am devoid emotionally of its violence on a precious innocent life. Over the years my opinion about abortion has changed dramatically. I was once a solid supporter of abortion rights and felt any restrictions placed upon its needs and access was a gross injustice.
But things changed as I grew older. I began to experience my solid support for this right diminishing over time. There are many reasons why my opinion changed, but the greatest impact came from my work with men and men’s issues, and the birth of my own children.

The impact from the birth of my children is self evident to any man who has become a father. When my wife became pregnant, she was considered “high-risk” due to complications from the birth of her first child – my step-daughter. Therefore, six weeks into the pregnancy the doctor requested my wife and I come in for an ultra-sound exam. It was at that moment, when I saw the miniscule beating hearts of my children, that I knew I would never again argue for the right of women to have unrestrictive and unbridled abortions.
I recognized two important fundamentals of life that day: First, with a right comes a responsibility, and second, just because it is legal to engage in certain practices, doesn’t mean those practices are morally justified.

The other component that led to my erosion of support for abortion came through my work with men and men’s issues. In my work with men’s organizations – those that help men going through difficult periods in their lives – I ran across a few men that were emotionally troubled by abortions they agreed to when they were young and irresponsible. The deep-seated emotional trauma of the abortion experience lay dormant in these men, and did not manifest until the men were older and going through the process of being a father for the first time.

It was during this same time when dealing with these issues and others that I began to see society’s hypocrisy towards men and the issues they face. It is as simple as this:
Society wants better men, and most men are willing to better themselves, but society isn’t willing to make any serious commitment intellectually, emotionally, or financially to men, boys, and fathers and the issues they face.
Thus began my work and research into men and men’s issues.

Today I use the right to abortion as the epitome of the sexism and hypocrisy men face. It authenticates in various ways the core arguments that most father and men’s rights advocates vocalize – the unequal, and discriminatory attitude towards men and masculinity.
Here are my reasons, the hypocrisies and inequities, that have caused the my unequivocal support of abortion to fade:

— Many feminist deplore the horrors and violence of war and are quick to point out that war is a product of masculinity. However, abortion kills more innocent lives every year than most wars, but the feminist sleep well knowing this feminine violence upon innocent victims occurs at a rate of almost 3300 everyday in U.S.

— Most wars are fought to secure and protect the liberties, safety, security, and stability of civilizations from rogue nations and dictators. In other words, the end results of men’s wars have resulted in the preservation of influential societies and governments. For all its devastating sacrifices, ultimately everyone benefits.
Consequently, studies show most abortion services are performed to avoid the responsibility of parenting. Therefore, it uses the death of innocent victims as a means to advance the interest of predominantly one party only – the woman.

— While feminist decry abortion as an inherent right – “my body, my choice” – I see it as another example of a matriarchal system that establishes a social construct in which children and men must sacrifice their rights and lives in order to preserve and advance the well-being of females.
In other words, the matriarchal system believes equality begins by establishing a woman’s life as having more value than that of men and children.

— While feminist have always been quick to point out the tragedies women suffer at the hands of men who become deadbeat dads and abandon their responsibilitiy to their child, they avoid discussing the differences between men and women concerning the avoidance of parental responsibility. The majority of men abandon their parental responsibilities by running away from women and children, but leave the child(ren) alive, which leaves the potential for faith, hope, and opportunity to intervene. Women just kill the unborn child, killing the power of faith, hope, and opportunity along with the child.

— Feminist and pro-choice supporters have established in their arguments that the government has no business intervening in a woman’s life and making the emotional, and life changing decision as to whether she should terminate her pregnancy. For abortion supporters, having this powerful choice of decision placed into the hands of somebody else is the greatest injustice women can face. This is validated by its importance included at every political election.
However, these same abortion supporters have no problem with current abortion laws that exclude men legally from the abortion decision making process, giving women total power and control over whether or not the father will be forced into parenthood. It appears women do not want others making life changing decisions for them, but they are very comfortable making those same decisions for others and calling it “fair”.

— It must also be noted how Roe vs. Wade began. A woman named Norma L. McCorvey became pregnant with her third child. Her first child was raised by her mother, the second child left to be raised by its father. When she became pregnant again, she did not want the responsiblilty, so she sought an abortion – illegal at this time. When she found out she could not get one legally, she decided to try a different tactic – she claimed she was raped. It turns out she later admitted her rape story was false.
Feminist have consistently stated women will never lie about being raped, and any false claim of rape is extremely rare and has no lasting effect on those involved.
The foundational issue of a woman’s freedom and liberty from the masculine patriarchy has been the right to an abortion. And the main event leading to this historical victory for women began with a false accusation of rape – the very thing the feminist say never occurs. And remember, according to them, should it occur, it has very little impact on those involved and almost no impact on society.
I’ll leave you to decide.

My point: I believe in the right for women to have access to abortion services, but I do not believe that abortion should be used to abandon parental responsibility.
I view abortion the same way I view war – a necessary evil. Each of these uncomfortable events carries the right to do so, but each carries (or should carry) the responsibility to find more reasonable solutions at all cost. And just because we can rightfully carry out either action, doesn’t automatically justify that it is morally correct to do so.
As one can see, abortion carries many of the core issues faced by men and father’s rights activist today. That is why I use it as a convenient issue to display the inequities that men and fathers face.
Again, I’m not against a woman’s right to an abortion. But if someone is going to vocalize to me about men and masculinity being at the root of all evil, well you know where this debate is going to go.



January 15, 2008

Can’t Catch a Break – Unless You’re Female: Part II

Yesterday I shared with you some articles that were worth noting because they displayed what I felt are the various forms of sexism men face daily. I’m not sure if it was Karma or just coincidence, but between yesterday and today I came across a hand full of articles that corroborate yesterday’s theme.
So let’s continue by dealing with these articles now.

Dealing with Anti-Feminism: The Feminist eZine – Bachelorism
This article is written by Suzanne MacNevin, a female/feminist who is very upset with men who have blamed feminism for their vow to remain bachelors.
The irony is that her emotions, opinions, and logic play right into the hands of the men she is arguing against. She is upset that men blame feminist for all their problems, but then uses the typical feminist blame, shame, and humiliation tactics to make her case – the exact behavior that has given feminist an evil reputation, and the exact behavior that does nothing to dispute the bachelors’ logic. In fact, it appears to actually reinforce and validate their argument.
And it just wouldn’t be a true anti-male/hate speech if it didn’t include some kind of reference to female-on-male violence – a right of passage for female empowerment – to which the writer is more than happy to indulge with a picture of women kicking a man in his face.
The only thing this article did for me was validate the argument for the bachelors. You go boys!
Dealing with Anti-Feminism: The Feminist eZine – Bachelorism

Who’s Tired of Pink
Another emotional harangue by a disgruntled woman, Erica Jong, who is frustrated and upset with men because they haven’t created a perfect world for her and other women to live in. She complains about men’s wars, men trying to control women’s wombs, men not doing their share of housework and family care, how men are killing wives and children, blah, blah, blah
On the plus side she states she knows her judgments are “generalizations” (a euphemism for hateful, disturbing, sexist remarks towards men), but these disingenuous generalizations are good enough for her intellect to determine it is time for women to take charge. She sees men as having f***ed everything up.
Isn’t just like the female ego to know its judgments and analysis of a situation is wrong, but confident enough to know that in spite of its faults and vices, it’s still superior to anything a man can do?
Note: I will be writing more in-depth about these two articles in the near future. In the mean time, David Usher from Men’s News Daily has responded to Mrs. Jong’s harangue. His article can be found on this website in the “Featured Article of the Week” in the upper right hand corner.
Who’s Tired of Pink

FOXSexpert: Dissecting the Ultimate in Double-Dipping; Why Do People Cheat?
I have written previously about my dislike for female sex therapist. I feel they are closet feminist because most of their writings and opinions reveal sympathy for women and their issues, but display snide, insincere remarks about men when topics cross gender lines.
Previously I reported how Fox News “sexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright wrote about some gender issues with an obvious disdain toward men. Well, she is at it again.
In her most recent column she tackles the issue of infidelity. While the main article itself is kept gender neutral, Fulbright couldn’t keep from taking a cheap shot at men. At the end of her piece, she briefly covers topics in the news.
One topic covers the growing disparity between males and female in school and the well known trend of girls outperforming the boys in record numbers. Instead of showing concern over the inequality in academic performance and opportunity, she is spiteful and gleeful in the fact that women are outperforming the men. She states with unbridled enthusiasm that men can no longer be considered the smarter ones on the dating scene, and most disturbing, it seems to bring tears of joy to her eyes that men will not be able to compete with women for quality jobs.
She has pretty much validated my opinion about the underlying currents of contempt and hate female sex therapist have for men. And since bigotry breeds ignorance, it is obvious Fulbright is no “expert” at anything but ignorance. Most studies show that the more educated a man is the more likely he is to exhibit the very conscious behavior prescribed by women right’s advocates. A man who is educated is more likely to have greater self-esteem and a greater sense of self worth which leads to him:
— having the qualities women desire, such as respecting women as individuals
— having more empathy for their needs and concerns
— less likely to abuse his spouse or his children
— a strong interest in seeing her succeed in her passions
— less likely to become involved in criminal activity
But Fulbright’s ignorance and immaturity subjugates all logical reasoning. She would rather engage in playground politics than show any real concern for men and women.
Sadly, it’s all about satisfying her own ego.
FOXSexpert: Dissecting the Ultimate in Double-Dipping; Why Do People Cheat?

I Would Want to Give My Child, Like, Everything In the World
The last article I want to share with you concerns the “malevolence to benevolence” tactic used by women to diminish or disguise their irresponsible or violent behavior.
This research concerns abortions – who is having them and why. It explains how women who have abortions feel compelled to do so out of sympathy for the unborn child, feeling the quality of life for the child will be a difficult one, and the ultimate choice – to abort -is one of ultimate compassion.
The research itself is insightful, but the researchers themselves can’t escape from being seduced into apologists for the female killings of the unborn. Here is the quote that caught my attention:

The findings demonstrate reasons why women have abortions throughout their reproductive lifespans and that their decisions to terminate pregnancies are often influenced by the desire to be a good parent.

Are you kidding me? Killing unborn children is an effective “good parenting” skill? If this is true, then women owe men an enormous apology.
Here are some things to think:
— Men are humiliated, shamed, ostrazized, and incarcerated for not being responsible to their children. Many men fear being a parent and the responsibility it entails; therefore they run from the situation. I’m not condoning their behavior, but this assessment is known to be generally true. So it amazes me that men who abandon fatherhood because they feel they are not emotionally or financially stable enough to care for their child are demonized for leaving the children fatherless, but ALIVE. At the same time, women who can’t handle the responsibility of a child, KILL the child, and receive sympathy and empathy.
— Women’s rights group are disturbed by countries that hold male children in veneration, thereby killing most female babies – in the womb or out. But according to this research on abortions, if true, then women’s right’s activists would have to conceded that they no longer have an argument that the practice of killing female children is despicable. In these same foreign countries, male children are seen as having the best quality of life. This is the same argument being made by these researchers. If we accept a woman’s decision not to bring a child into this world with respect to the quality of life as an important issue, them women’s rights advocates and others cannot hold foreign countries and their cultural beliefs to a different set of standards than others.
But I’ll bet the feminist ego finds an excuse why the two are “different”.
I Would Want to Give My Child, Like, Everything In the World

Blog at WordPress.com.