Re: "Women in Science: The Battle Moves to the Trenches"


Ken Chaddock wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
Ken Chaddock wrote:

Hyerdahl wrote:

PolishKnight wrote:

Hello Maculinist,

I never said discrimination against men was good (intentional or not)
but rather that as fewer traditional men are available to support women
that this would cause a strain on women's support for feminism.


But ....it hasn't. Including women in societal institutions only
enables women to make better choices in their personal lives, and that
means they need not 'settle' in marriages. Prior to WWII, most women
remained at home, in the financial prisons of fathers or husbands.
Some of those "prisons" were lined in mink and silk while others were
not. Today women have choices and with equality and equal rights also
comes duties. Traditional men are indeed not as available today since
men evolve just like women. A woman who wants the choice to be a SAH
wife still has the burden to find such a man, if there is one to find.
But, Mark....if women are unhappy with the choices they have, why
aren't they marching to give up their rights to vote, own property,
etc. Why don't they just line up to turn their bodies over to
patriarchy? :-)

The vast majority of men aren't demanding that they give up these new
"rights" Parg/Hyerdahl,


First, it wouldn't matter what the "vast majority of men demanded" when
women have rights.

Well, actually...that's not true. "Most" women still seem to be
concerned with what men think of them and are dismayed when they hear
comments like "You only got that promotion because you're a woman" or
"You only got that seat in law school because you're a woman". Most
women also still want respect and co-operation from men and would
generally like men to be supportive of their goals and efforts. Men will
not respect women who are "takers" who will not shoulder their fair
share of the burdens of society and who refuse to accept personal
responsibility for their decisions and actions...it's one thing to ask
for help...which most men will be more than willing to give freely, it's
entirely another to feel "entitled" to support "just because" you're a
woman and to demand laws and regulations to codify the requirements for
men to do the heavy lifting while women sit back and enjoy the fruits of
male effort...

Secondly, the men I seem to meet would not make such foolish demands because
they WANT equal wives.

Of course we want equal wives and girlfriends...some of us are even
lucky enough to have them. Others are not so lucky and, unfortunately,
current legislation codifies the bias that supports women in NOT having
to shoulder their fair share of the burden or accept the consequences of
their decisions and actions...

It is only very insecure men who want women to be less than that.

I agree. When do you think we might see the legislative structure of
our nations reflect the expectation that women, in general, have to take
up their fair share of the burden and accept the consequences stemming
from their decisions and the exercise of their sole authorities ?

only that they dispense with the notion that
they can have it both ways and they just have to start picking up the
load of social obligation and personal responsibility that so many
refuse to accept.

It has always been my contention that rights and duties are contingent
upon each other.

I agree 100% however your idea on the progression is the reverse of
mine...first, "rights" must be earned and often paid for with blood and
then maintained by the fulfillment of duties and obligations. As Thomas
Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

So I'm not seeing what you mean by the above statement, unless you're
confused about choices and rights.

I'm not at all confused. I see woman demanding "equal" rights to men
but, in general, refusing to take up the burdens and obligations
inherent in maintaining the society that grants them those "rights". By
not doing so, they are essentially "free loading" on the efforts of men
who *are* generally willing to take up those burdens.
There will come a "tipping point" at which men will either simply
refuse to continue unilaterally accepting that burden or at which time
they will refuse to continue allowing women to "free load"...and I think
that point is approaching rather more quickly than you imagine.
The science fiction writer Robert Hienlien, in several novels and short
stories, postulated a society of absolute equality between men and women
in which there were two levels, full citizens and regular citizens who
were absolutely equal legally and socially except that full citizens had
the right to vote and hold elected public office and civil service jobs
while regular citizens could not vote or hold elected public office or
civil service jobs. The differentiation between these two groups was
that full citizens had fulfilled a mandatory 5 year period of full time
"social service" (often military service, service in remote areas etc.)
and had an ongoing responsibility for voluntary social service...they
*earned* AND maintained the "right" to vote and the other "perks"...

Social choices are what they are...and each person can choose. Civil rights
are the same for women as for men.

Keep "choosing" not to pull you weight and your "weight" many be
lessened by the loss of some "rights"...

The main complaints of men today are two fold: 1st: the social
revolution that was supposed to "free" both men and women from the
"shackles" of the old social order has, to a great extent done that for
women but has been deliberately stopped short of freeing men and the
"stoppage" of the revolution has been brought about by radical feminists
who chose to demonize men in order to attain "equality ++" for women,

There are no civil rights being violated, Ken.

It's hard to violate "civil rights" if you reject equality as the basis
for civil rights...think where women would be today if men had taken
that position 50 years ago...


What you are refering
to is gibberish. You have shown us no rights being violated, and you
seem to be angered by the social choices men make, blaming women FOR
those choices. If men are not "freed" by the choices men make, then
they're making the wrong choices. Otherwise the rights men have are
just as equal as the rights women have.

Karen DeCrow, when President of NOW, seemed to understand what I mean
when she promoted an agenda of justice and equality for both men and
women. The following are just two quotes from speaches and talks where
she outlined her proposed agenda and the direction that she wished to
take NOW and the women's movement...

"If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should]
have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion
for women and ending of paternity suits for men.
Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would
only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men."

"Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision
to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of
support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent
decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

Here is where I completely disagree with you. Paying child support is
to benefit the child, not the mother. Men have the right to practice
birth control or abstinence should they choose not to be fathers. You
post this as if men are without biological choices. The bottom line
here is that once a child is born it is the responsibility of BOTH
parents to ensure that, that child is adequately cared for.

...too bad the prospect of having to accept personal responsibility so
scared women that they had to repudiate her egalitarianism...

and 2nd: that the majority of women are more than willing to accept the
new "rights" but are unwilling to take up the social obligations that
sustain the society that created and maintains those rights and are also
unwilling to accept the personal responsibilities that go along with
"freedom"...wanting men to continue to do all the "heavy lifting"

There is no LAW forcing men to do the "heavy lifting", Ken.

If men *don't* do the "heavy lifting" who will ? Women certainly don't
seem inclined to take up the burden...which would result in the loss of
all those "rights" you so love but aren't willing to make an effort to
maintain...

Exactly what effort is that you feel that women are not making? I see
a lot of noise in your post and no specific facts.

In fact,
there are laws suggesting just how much human beings should lift in
jobs they take on. What you don't like is the very social choices MEN
MAKE. If men don't want jobs where they have to lift, let them take
child care duties at a day care center.

Oh, can you direct me to a child care center that might be willing to
hire a man ? Feminists have so belittled and demonized men in their lust
for special rights and privileges for women that this choice, and many
others, has been effectively eliminated for men...which is probably part
of the agenda...make it impossible for men to take any of the "jammie" jobs

Once again...wrong facts. Did you know that in Canada any male that
applies to teach JK-to Grade 4 is accepted in teachers college at
higher rates than women regardless of their GPA. Affirmative action
works both ways. They are also more able to receive promotion from
these positions at a faster rate than women. Men who choose to forgo
typically masculine positions find that have even greater opportunity
when they enter into positions that have been typically female
dominated.



.