This is exactly the kind of female supremacist crap that is the problem.

How can men force women to treat them right if they are unwilling to live without women who don't. Women succeeded because they are willing to go without men if men don't meet certain standards. Short of all men becoming gay I don't see any equivalent leverage.

this is something outside of the experience of women because women, unlike men, will choke on the crap eventually if they don't need men for some other reason. Of course this doesn't mean women are in control of everything but it means they have a lot more power than they will usually admit.

but it's a big enough improvement over the alternative that it is worth fighting for.

the countries that have the most trouble are Italy and Japan where women don't have to have kids any more but it hasn't been made easier. In some countries that "bribe" women generously to have kids population is at or very near replacement levels.

it is a unique event. It isn't exactly an injury but it isn't exactly NOT one either. It isn't comparable to other natural functions that the body is "designed" to perform.

did she say that she thought it should be made illegal. How damaging or wrong is "disapproval", I think it is completely misguided to disapprove of early abortions but people have lots of weird ideas. If they don't try and force other people to act on them how is that an issue.

and since despite the ad campaign to promote stay at home housedaddies very very few men are going to seek out these situations once lots of people have actual experience doing it and it becomes more widely known what women really think of and how they treat men in this situation.

a massive tax funded social service system? This is the trend in European countries, so maybe that is the way to go.

women voted for republicans and democrats in virtually the same proportions men did from the time they got the vote until the 90's so women, as voters, were not a part of any bloc. The Republican party, it is true, was the party of business but there was a progressive element, or an element that considered itself progressive, and prohibition was a part of that. Bryan was both a fundamentalist/theocrat AND a true progressive for the time in other ways. You are drawing the parallels with the present too closely, there were a lot of similarities and a lot of the same issues were present but they were not combined in all the same "blocs" and were not seen the same way.

read the letters here

so they open themselves to comment on how they are managing the job (of course the job is impossible).

if so few live up to it why is it that I seem to get involved with so many women who take right to it, even within marriage! Just lucky I guess.

given the apparent predelictions of a good chunk of the priesthood this confession is liable to be the occasion of more sin.

writing in here are particularly unrepresentative and/or that their counterparts did not exist in the past?

although I don't know how much data exists to really analyze the question.

she has to have sole authority when it is in her body and not yet human, but you can't have some sort of opt out scheme for men either; there simply is no way that anything like that could ever work without creating large scale catastrophe. Kids have to be taken care of. The ONLY OPTION, (other than the current one where men have to support kids they didn't necessarily "choose" in the way women have a choice) is a tax funded social system that everyone pays to support that makes it really possible for women to raise kids by themselves if they want to. Men can then be as much or as little involved as they like, or she likes, but men might be mostly very little involved and not necessarily by their own choice most of the time.

that all those things did happen.

once the fetus has MEANINGFULLY HUMAN characteristics, (based on an understanding derived from non mystical sources) the woman's control is not in the law now and should not be, absolute, but until this is the case it should be.

most people don't call themselves theocrats but when they seek to impose their mystically derived insights into absolute truth on other people by force then, whether we are talking about abortion or prosititution that is what, really, they are.

would "women's experience" be the most important issue if we were judging infanticide or child abuse committed by women. Maybe I shouldn't ask.

women support outlawing porn, prostition and all manner of other theocratic regulation of private consensual sexual behavior at much higher rates than men do. It is probably true that the reason for this is that there are practical ways that women can, or potentially could, (Swedens prostitution laws) use the govt. to control male sexuality in ways that women believe will benefit them and in a modern society there is no way that women can be effectively controlled. So men are probably more libertarian than women out of self preservation rather than altruism, nevertheless men ARE more morally libertarian than women.

therefore the reasons for doing so MUST be "religious" in a broad sense.

So you DO think it is a coincidence that prohibition was voted in as soon as women go the vote?

and since it is not possible to have non religious reasons for doing so you cannot use the force of law to impose compliance with that belief on others.

it is no coincidence that prohibition came in at the same time women got the vote.