"Men's rights"??
Some "men's" advocacy group is filing a lawsuit alleging that legal paternal obligations (such as mandatory child support) violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, some guy gets a girl pregnant, and, rather than having the child executed, the mother decides to raise the child, expecting - demanding - the father at the very least contribute monetarily to the child's care and upbringing. But this "men's" advocacy group whines, "That's so unfair!"
I use quotes to describe these "men" because there's nothing manly about their cause. They're little boys with peckers, sticking them where they don't belong - not so confused as sodomites, fortunately! - and then trying too late to pull out.
It's bad enough that such boys-with-peckers have run so roughshod over women that, rather than raising fatherless children, women now resort to murdering the bastard offspring of these renegades. Now these same renegades want total immunity for anything they might do while under the direction of their peckers.
Time was when we men stood up for those who couldn't stand up for themselves, when "shotgun wedding" was a literal term, when a young woman's brothers would, one way or another, see to it that the young man in question did right by her, thus giving the fellow a swift and compelling initiation into the society of men, responsible and upright husbands and fathers.
Gone is this society of men for whom a young woman's pregnancy guaranteed a husband for her and a father for her child. And if these little boys get their way with their whiny "I'm such a victim!" lawsuit, gone also is the small comfort of a check every month to help buy food and clothes for her child.
Yeah, I know women have a whole lot weighing on their side. (Any women reading this, feel free to skip the rest, because you might find my chauvinism shocking or something.) As a friend once put it, they have half the money and all the you-know-what. Well the simple fact is, we men could get all the power and money back any time we please. The simple fact is, women have whatever they have because we let them have it. They can't compel anything of us, but we can compel it of them.
How can I say that? Simple: Everything comes down to might, to force. Everything. America could build a world empire; we have the might. Since the Soviet Union's demise, we are unmatched in military might. If Iran goes nuclear, it'll be because we witheld our might. If North Korea starts to really get on our nerves, we could squash them like a grape. If we get desperate for cheap gas, we can march into the Middle East and Venezuela and take their oil by force. We don't, and we won't, but we could. Nobody could stop us.
Women vote because we men let them. They've infiltrated our military because we let them. They're on our sons' football teams because we let them. They're our coworkers and bosses because we let them. They win alimony and child support suits because we let them. They're in Congress and on the Supreme Court because we let them. And if one ever ascends to the Presidency, it'll be because we men let her.
Men have superior might than women. We're created bigger, stronger, faster, and, when it comes to warfare, smarter than women. We have greater tolerance of physical pain and strain, and the ability to shut down emotions when necessary. You can appeal to decency, fairness, human rights, women's rights, the Constitution, etc. all day long. But in the end, those are just ideas, and can be (and sometimes are) simply rejected. They have no inherent force. When men decide they want women back in subservience, back in subservience women will go. They could put up a fight, sure. And they would lose. When it comes to a contest of might, they can't compete with men.
Women, naturally, come to us with appeals to our fairness, kindness, nobility. And we accede to their requests when we understand it is right to do so. But when we've had enough, we have the might to demote them to the same demeaning stature that Muslim barbarians do. (I pray such a day never comes that men in America use our superior might for such ends. But if we are restrained from it, it's not out of fear of women's might.)
Knowing all this, men have a fundamental obligation to govern ourselves, to restrain our superior might, to use it to provide for and protect women rather than mistreat them. And we have a responsibility to hold one another accountable, and compel one another to fulfill our duties toward women. To do otherwise is to show ourselves unworthy of the authority nature's God gave us.
I use quotes to describe these "men" because there's nothing manly about their cause. They're little boys with peckers, sticking them where they don't belong - not so confused as sodomites, fortunately! - and then trying too late to pull out.
It's bad enough that such boys-with-peckers have run so roughshod over women that, rather than raising fatherless children, women now resort to murdering the bastard offspring of these renegades. Now these same renegades want total immunity for anything they might do while under the direction of their peckers.
Time was when we men stood up for those who couldn't stand up for themselves, when "shotgun wedding" was a literal term, when a young woman's brothers would, one way or another, see to it that the young man in question did right by her, thus giving the fellow a swift and compelling initiation into the society of men, responsible and upright husbands and fathers.
Gone is this society of men for whom a young woman's pregnancy guaranteed a husband for her and a father for her child. And if these little boys get their way with their whiny "I'm such a victim!" lawsuit, gone also is the small comfort of a check every month to help buy food and clothes for her child.
Yeah, I know women have a whole lot weighing on their side. (Any women reading this, feel free to skip the rest, because you might find my chauvinism shocking or something.) As a friend once put it, they have half the money and all the you-know-what. Well the simple fact is, we men could get all the power and money back any time we please. The simple fact is, women have whatever they have because we let them have it. They can't compel anything of us, but we can compel it of them.
How can I say that? Simple: Everything comes down to might, to force. Everything. America could build a world empire; we have the might. Since the Soviet Union's demise, we are unmatched in military might. If Iran goes nuclear, it'll be because we witheld our might. If North Korea starts to really get on our nerves, we could squash them like a grape. If we get desperate for cheap gas, we can march into the Middle East and Venezuela and take their oil by force. We don't, and we won't, but we could. Nobody could stop us.
Women vote because we men let them. They've infiltrated our military because we let them. They're on our sons' football teams because we let them. They're our coworkers and bosses because we let them. They win alimony and child support suits because we let them. They're in Congress and on the Supreme Court because we let them. And if one ever ascends to the Presidency, it'll be because we men let her.
Men have superior might than women. We're created bigger, stronger, faster, and, when it comes to warfare, smarter than women. We have greater tolerance of physical pain and strain, and the ability to shut down emotions when necessary. You can appeal to decency, fairness, human rights, women's rights, the Constitution, etc. all day long. But in the end, those are just ideas, and can be (and sometimes are) simply rejected. They have no inherent force. When men decide they want women back in subservience, back in subservience women will go. They could put up a fight, sure. And they would lose. When it comes to a contest of might, they can't compete with men.
Women, naturally, come to us with appeals to our fairness, kindness, nobility. And we accede to their requests when we understand it is right to do so. But when we've had enough, we have the might to demote them to the same demeaning stature that Muslim barbarians do. (I pray such a day never comes that men in America use our superior might for such ends. But if we are restrained from it, it's not out of fear of women's might.)
Knowing all this, men have a fundamental obligation to govern ourselves, to restrain our superior might, to use it to provide for and protect women rather than mistreat them. And we have a responsibility to hold one another accountable, and compel one another to fulfill our duties toward women. To do otherwise is to show ourselves unworthy of the authority nature's God gave us.
posted by Lear's Fool | 6:44 PM
3 Comments:
Without knowing the details of the case, I can't say for certain what the intent might be.
I have advocated something very similar for years. Let me finish. I always felt that the best way to attack abortion what to expose it on the issue of fairness.
A woman and man meet, have a drink, have sex. She gets pregnant. At that moment she has fundamental rights that the man does not. She's a potential mother and he a potential father. Thanks to Roe v. Wade, however, she has all other rights. She can abort and relieve herself of the "burden" of raising the child. If he wants the same thing, it works out well for him. However, if he wants the child he has no claim to it. Turn it around. She wants to keep the child but he does not. She has the power under the law to force his support.
Don't get me wrong, he should support the child. He's hardly a man if he doesn't. I'm arguing from a legal position, however, that abortion law does exactly what women's groups wanted: it gives HER the choice and power. If this power were to be equalized, say by giving the father the power to abort perhaps in the form of a right or writ, what would be the effect?
I suggest that suddenly women's groups would find themselves in a pickle. If they oppose it, then they are conceding that women should have special rights. If they agree to it, then they are relinquishing something that women often count on: support.
I think this could have a devastating effect on pro-abortion rights.
On a local talk show this afternoon, I heard an interview with one of the spokesmen for this men's advocacy group. He made the very same points in support of the lawsuit that you have just made.
Pardon my bluntness, Jav - none of us three have ever needed to mince words - but it's a whiny argument. For me to just reply, "Life is unfair" won't cut it, of course, because that presupposes an equality between the sexes - which you won't assume any more than I will.
This isn't a lawsuit between equals, however, but between men and women. The inequality of position results in inequality of responsibility. We hold a position of authority, strength, and power. Thus we have greater responsibility.
The pro-abortion position might be weakened by the arguments in this suit, but that doesn't validate them. No more than a boy whining, "But she hit me first!" As men, we're expected to endure it without retaliation, because women cannot endure our retaliation.
No, I believe abortion must be attacked head-on, not with behind-the-lines sabotage. (That was my argument in Roe Delenda Est.) As long as it stands, Roe is a mocking embarrassment to American men's impotence for all the reasons you gave. But what does it say about us when the best we can muster is a plea for "fairness"?
Our children are depending on us. Their very lives are at stake. And if we have to fight their mothers, it's not a battle of our choosing but one we from which we must not shrink.
But there's got to be a better way to save our kids than by simply abandoning them in order to make their mothers suffer.
Well, I don't know where these men are willing to take it. My point isn't to even get such a right passed.
The so-called Women's Lib movement is premised on the misguided notion that men and women should be equal and are equal. My point is that such a case shows them that if this were the case then law would dictate that men could abandon their children in much the same way women do with abortion. Legally, they should have that right (assuming the premise that women should be on quality with men in every way).
I'm totally with you on the merits of the case and what it means for men to do this. My point is, hold this up as a ruler of sorts. "Women, society must understand the differences between men and women and respect them. Without them, the law would be compelled to grant men the same equal right that you have, namely a writ of abortion."
I would hope such a law would NEVER come to pass. However, given women's groups propensity to use "fairness, equality, and law" to get their way, this might be a mirror to hold up and say, "Look what you're really saying."
I didn't mean to imply that I would advocate the law come to pass, rather that it's basis in fairness and supposed equality would show the danger of making everything "equal."
JP
Post a Comment
<< Home