In article ,
 "bluesmama"  wrote:

> Which seems appropriate to me, seeing as how we're discussing a woman
> carrying a child and man who has contributed his sperm to the child's
> conception.

Unless she gets rid of it.  Then no "child" was conceived
in the first place.

Let's make something clear: Nobody is disputing the fact
that women are in a power power here.  But what
is at dispute is:

1) Why (this is done because of legality, not biology)
2) The morality (it's hard to criticize deadbeats when
women act with the morals of a tomcat.)

The technologies we're discussing tests the moral
and biological truthfullness of the above two
points we're discussing.  If women truly are more
moral and powerful than men, then a male birth control
pill isn't going to change a lot.

If they're not, then hold onto your hat (or bonnet) because
we're all in for a very interesting ride. (pardon the pun)

> I say the woman is the more "committed" of the two
> potential parents,

You can "say" this.  But as I said, reality will
reveal itself whether either of us like it or not.
That's when denial really turns around and bites people
in the butt.

Today, women have very little commitment throughout
the process making their failure all that much more
revealing as to why sexism existed in the first place:

1) Woman sleeps around with random men.
2) Women can get rid of the product of sex if she pleases
through abortion.
3) She can then choose to adopt out the child responsibly.
4) Barring that, she can legally abandon it as the
states often allows because of women killing their infants.
5) If she doesn't do any of the above, she can collect
welfare make money off of her kid.  Kaching!

To call a woman "more committed" in the above situation
is laughably delusional if not hypocritical.

> and _should_ have post-coital rights that men don't.
> You disagree. You see my view as misandrous sexism. I disagree.

Ironically, in the past it was feminists who accused
the so-called Patriarchy as having a police state to
control what women do with their bodies.

Today, it's mostly women crying to the state to find
the 10 or so guys they slept with and figure out whose
the father lest she starve her child.  Just think
of the billions the state would save if it they
weren't constantly recuing damsels in disdress.
(women are equal to men provided they get extra
protection.  That's similar to women competing with
men in golf provided they use the woman's tee.)

> > Why not ? Since a MAN gets NO post coital choice to decline legal
> > parenthood, while women get MANY such, it IS rape... of men.
>
> No. A penetration of a man's anus by another man's penis (or some
> similar instrument, used by a man or woman) is rape of a man.

This opens up a whole can of worms such as the Dworkian notion
that all heterosexual sex is rape by this definition.

Indeed, heterosexuality means that women are "penetrated"
and controlled by men.  No wonder you gals are so messed up.
You enjoy having us ravage you.

> A woman
> "forcing" a man to have penetrative sex with her (and it's always
> confused me how men, short of being forced to take Viagra, could be
> forced to an erection, but what I don't know about men's reproductive
> systems is most likely a lot, so feel free to enlighten me on this
> point) would also be rape. You seem somewhat confused on this point.

I think Andre's use of the word rape to be a bit, er,
hysterical in this context.  For one thing, nothing
happens that powerful men don't make happen.  Women's
equality is still a function of men patronizing women.
Men regard women as helpless amoral children to be
spoiled and that's where the 'rape' of individual men
come from.

That said, men having the same tools as women (not all of
the tools, but most) will be quite revolutionary.  As usual,
it's a, er, man's job.  Get out of the way ladies,
we'll show you how it's done.

> > > But perhaps not surprising, given your choice of language.
> >
> > Your INABILITY to refute the SEXISM of your views, noted.
>
> You see my views as sexist, I still don't. I see your views as sexist,
> you still don't. We appear to be at an impasse.

I want to say you have a point here, but I would love to hear
how Andre is being sexist.  A bit whiney, maybe, but
sexist?

On the contrary, feminism by definition is a sexist
notion that equality exists mostly for women's benefit.

> Except of course you
> think your views are the correct ones, whereas I know my views are only
> that - my views - not the truth of the world as revealed to me, as
> apparently the truth has been revealed to you.

That's a very humbling statement to make.  And it's quite correct.
Your logic is quite self-serving and narrow minded.
It's only due to historical coincidence you can live
in the fantasy world you're in now.  Enjoy it while it lasts!

Prediction: Career women and poorer women will start
drying up (literally) childless as they are unable to
find horny suckers and are replaced in the population by
the children of sexist men who use such technologies because
of the lesson they received that women are untrustworthy.
Feminism as it is today has only been around for
40 years or so and it's pretty much in collapse already.
I wouldn't place too many bets on it being around
in another 40 years.  You should live to see the end of it.

>Tell the voices I said
> "Hi" and hope to hear them sometime, maybe the next time I get really
> stoned.

Oooh, a nasty ad-hominem attack!

I would argue that you do sound more reasonable considering
you're making a defense of a status quo position so
you aren't going to kill yourself.  Throw out whatever
lame rationalization and call the people who disagree
with you "nuts" and that's that.

The problem is that the 'crazies' out there make the world
of the future.  "I have a dream!!!" and the women's vote
were positions held by people that were considered on a suicide
mission.  When all you have going for the status quo
is that it's the status quo, and not a very well established
one at that, you probably should get ready to see it gone
in the very near future.

The neat thing about feminism (and women in general) is just
how stubborn they can be, even in an irrational manner,
in the face of reality.  The problem with that is
that you lose credibility VERY quickly if you lose.
You better hope that your reasoning that women are so
moral by exploiting bastard babies or aborting unwanted
"conceived" children at their whim is reality because
there are about a half dozen demographical factors
that will take feminism down in the near future.

And nearly ALL men out there don't have a lot of reason
to help keep that from happening.  Most women either.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/21/05 1:25:19 AM ---