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

On a personal level men and womem are concerned about what the other
thinks of them, but no moreso for women than for men, Ken. And women
(as a group) are not concerned about what men (as a group) think of
them and men (as a group) probably feel the same way about women (as a
group). No one needs to jump thru hoops.

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".

Women who hear comments like that laugh at male arrogance. They simply
don't take bitter boys seriously any more, Ken.

Most women also still want respect and co-operation from men and would

generally like men to be supportive of their goals and efforts.


No moreso than men want women to be supportive of THEIR goals and
efforts, tho. Women who have equal rights, equal access to societal
institutions and guns need not depend upon the good will of men just
like men don't need to depend on the good will from women. And respect
is either mutual or not. It doesn't just move in one direction. The
more men who diss women will discover themselves being dissed. It's
just that simple.

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...

AGain, it's up to each individual to determine what social choices they
make; no one is standing there with a gun forcing men to marry women
who don't do their fair share in life. 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...

The court treats both sexes exactly the same way, Ken. Those who do
the primary care prior to divorce, tend to continue what the couple
themselves put into effect. Those who sacrifice the career for family
are entitled to reimbursement from the career having spouse. The judge
knows quite well how to justify the end of a marriage and resolve
issues in the best interests of the children, and the division of
property.

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 ?

We already have that, Ken. The marital contract enforces it.

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."

No problem. As soon as all the military rights are provided to women,
they should have the same military duties as the men.

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.

AGain, Ken....when the women have equal military rights, equal military
duties will follow. Keep in mind that women are dying in Iraq right
now (as volunteers) and they don't yet even have equal military rights.

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.

I have no problem with ending war. War is the biggest wastrel of our
society. Pre-emptive war is a sign of ultimate moral decay.


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"...

I LOVE that idea. In fact, it would be predicated upon equal military
rights, no?

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"...

Not at all, Ken. A loss of rights will not occur over mere social
choices. Today women comprise just over 51% of those eligible to vote.
:-)


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...

Before women had the right to vote, civil rights WERE being violated.
You cannot have a democratic society where only some of the people have
a say in how they are governed.

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.

Karen DeCrow is a nutjob who doesn't know the law.


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.

But there isn't. That's why DeCrow was ousted for not understanding
the difference between bodies and wallets, or existing children and
non-existent ones. She and that other nut job were both ousted....

Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would
only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men."


Equal rights demand that where a harm is created by two, it is financed
by two. Women's "choices" in that regard only come between two
burdens, gestation or abortion.

"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."

AGain, you and DeCrow don't seem to understand how civil rights work.
:-)

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

Women have "egalitarianism" by law already, Ken. Today they are just
enforcing it, a painful process for insecure men like you who really
don't understand the law. Keep in mind, that C4M is still just hair
dye. It is not based on sound constitutional principles.

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 ?

That's not the issue, Ken. Men and women both have the choice. It's
like at my house, if the kids don't do the dishes, breakfast will
remain unserved. :-) Magically, they get done. :-)


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...

There are women in EVERY FACET of societal institutions today, Ken.
That you _say_ women are not doing their share doesn't compute. Not
only are women everywhere but they are still managing to bring home the
bacon, serve it up in a pan, and gestating each next generation of
soldiers.

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 ?

Sure. There are men taking child development classes and working in
day care.

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

Not impossible, Ken. There are male pre-school teachers and day-care
directors.

When women start to "do their share" so that men start to see some
"loosening of the chains" for themselves, most of the bitching will stop...

Women don't mind the bitching. They can always just work longer hours.

Oh good...when do you think they are going to start ?

They already have. They do paid work as well as unpaid work. Women
hold up MORE than half the world.


...Ken

.