In article ,
 hyerdahl3{at}aol.com (Hyerdahl3) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Partial summation of what men are up against
> >From: Men's Advocate nobody{at}nowhere.com 
> >Date: 1/6/2005 1:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: 
> >
> >On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:01:28 -0500, viking  wrote:
> >
> >>On 4 Jan 2005 15:23:55 -0800, "bluesmama"

> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm unsure as to what you mean by "it's a fight"
and "what's needed is
> >>>action" and do you think that men acting alone, are
going to change
> >>>these things? I'm not being sassy or saying men can't accomplish
> >>>incredible things, so please don't see offense where none
is intended.
> >>>I'm just asking how you think things should proceed.
> 
> That sounds fair.
> >>
> >>I do believe that today, men are in a staggeringly inferior
> position>culturally, legally, medically, and more. Much of that is simply
> taken>for granted, as in, if the draft were renewed, it'd be men-only;
> 
> If men don't want it that way, all they have to do is implement EQUAL 
> military
> rights; with those rights, equal military duties will follow.  There are 
> enough
> men in Congress who could do that.  There are NOT enough women in Congress to
> change it.

Gee, that didn't stop the military from implimenting unequal duties
and rights for other conscripts.  Bzzzt!

And about women in congress: You wouldn't argue that women represent
women's interests more than men's and vice-versa?  So I guess women
who vote for leftist men aren't having their interests represented
(oh, wait, that's not becoming as much as a problem as it used to be :-)

>  with the death-age gap, social security functions largely as a way 
>  to>>siphon
> money from men to women (who get 4-5x as much retirement as>men), 
> 
> The only reason women live longer appears to be the better health and risk
> choices women make.  I don't see society as wanting to punish women for 
> making
> better choices. 

Couldn't the same apply to whites?  It's neat trying to watch
politicians perform a juggling act of giving women disproportionate
benefits while protecting minorities...

> the hatefulness and vindictiveness of family law, the fact that>>men die 
> eight
> years earlier, which has never been studied by the govt,>seems to have no
> biological basis, but is an artifact of men's roles,
> 
> Men CHOOSE the roles men take; if they want to make healthier choices they 
> can
> do so; risky choices for men are not mandated at law.

Just as women choose gestation.  This may explain why there
are no welfare-queen medals for women who risk death
by squeezing out welfare recipients...

> the immense institutionalized anti-male practice known as affirmative action,
> the judicial war on men that has given the US the highest>fraction of men in
> jail, by far, of any country in the world, the>enormous body of law used to
> stifle men and their free
> 
> Men have to share; they can no longer keep the pie all to themselves.  Boo 
> hoo.

Men have been sharing all along!  It's successful career women
who are winding up dying alone and childless because they love
precious money.

> AA or England's EE is there to make sure there is a diversity in the 
> workforce
> and that a small percentage of rich white men are not suffocating other 
> groups.

Wouldn't it be against the law for rich white men to do such a thing?
Aren't they entitled to equal protection like anyone else?

> association-from stalking laws unequally applied to draconian 
> sexualharrassment
> laws that destroy men's lives without reason to automatic>>arrest-the-man
> domestic violence laws, 
> 
> There is no such law in ANY state in the US.  You're simply making up laws 
> that
> don't exist, little bitter twitter. 

Indeed.  A new SC might just discover a new meaning to the constitution.
I like their recent court decisions in florida! :-)
 
> to the violence against women>>act when there's no such for men,
to the fact
> that 
> 
> There is also a Bradey Law that applies to more than the Bradey Bunch, but
> don't let logic stifle you.
> 
> women-only gyms are now expressly legal, but mens-only not,
> 
> What do you call "Cuts" for men?  :-)  You are so out of touch.
> 
>  the 13.7x as much funding for
> >>breast cancer than prostate cancer when more men die from the latter
> >>than women from the former,
> 
> Both women and men die from breast cancer while ONLY men die from prostate
> cancer.  Plus, the age at which folks die from BC is earlier than for 
> prostate
> cancer.
> Plus govt. funding is equally avaialable to both while private funding is 
> what
> it is .
> 
>  to the depiction of men as scum and morons>>in the media, 
> 
> Women have been the butt of jokes for the last century ('take my
> wife...please') and now it's men's turn.  So what?  As to art imitating life,
> there's not much women can do about that when it isn't women who wage the 
> kinds
> of violence men do, or make some of the risky choices men make.
> 
> to the anti-boy nature of the schools which has caused>>the colleges and
> universities to approach 40% men, 60% women (ie, 50%>>more women
in college
> than men), to the funding taxed out of men for
> 
> Both sexes pay taxes, and we tend not to blame those who do more of the 
> unpaid
> work of society for paying lower taxes, nor do we blame those discriminated
> against for making less money.  
? Plus, you seem to want to blame women for 
> boys
> and men not learning.  Let us all know when it's discrimination responsible 
> for
> that.

Aren't the purposes of percentage goals supposed to establish when
discrimination occurs?  

> >>women's shelters when there are virtually none for men,
> 
> The 2.6 men in my county who routinely seek DV shelter don't generall warrent 
> a
> facility built for them;  they get vouchers and counseling if they want it. 
> It's the sam reason they have not built homeless shelters for single women.

Probably because no facility is available.  Imagine if such reasoning
was used in Title 11 about denying women access to male only
sports facilities: sports are't popular with women.

>  as well as>>women's "opportunity centers" when there
are none for men,
> women's>programs when there are none for men, women's centers when there are
> >>none for men, 
> 
> Programs designed for a particular social group are formed on the basis of a
> provable NEED. 

How about Halliburton taking your tax dollars for the needs of
rich white guys.  I love democracy. :-)

> Men don't appear to be disadvantaged when it comes to taking
> over most of the world

Indeed.  Good point there.  Abilities are a wonderful thing.
Didn't the president of Harvard admit that women are
disabled when it comes to math and science?  

> while women and slaves were doing the unpaid work :-)

And illegal immigrants.  Gotta admire career women for wanting
to save a buck when it suits them too.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/25/05 2:41:49 AM ---