Letters to the Editor
-
Also...
A person should not be able to get themselves ON the no-parent registry in the middle of a pregnancy situation.
-
Nicole and Gwen
Nicole, the rape question is a good one, I'll have to think on that a little bit before I have an answer. As for who would pick up the tab for the child, abortion itself wouldn't be an issue if we provided labor with real rights that gave people the means to take care of themselves. Also making things like the morning after pill over the counter. This, of course, is a dream with the current administration in power so I'd have to concede to that point as well until labor is put in control of the economy instead of capital. Hell this might just put a fire under certain people's collective asses to help allow people provide for themselves instead of making them dependent on the scraps tossed to them by corporate America.
Gwen, "You should try not to take the debate so personally." I'll remember that one the next time I'm watching an abortion argument. "Hey lady, you should try not taking the debate so personally, sure we're talking about your rights and the otherside's attempt to impose on them but come on, be a little more stoic." As for the taunt, it's a taunt due to the fact that young men, like me, are expected to pay for the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and so on and so forth. It's a taunt because it's being used as a trump card to justify the persecution of men, "hey, women have been persecuted for thousands of years, you can deal with it a little bit now."
Maybe man-hater was a little strong, but I do have to wonder how sincere feminist talk of equality really is when the feminists here are actively trying to justify persecution. I consider such people to be assholes no matter what social conflict between opposing groups is currently being discussed. If that doesn't apply to you, if you're not one who's seeking to justify reverse persecution simply because women have had to deal with it longer, then I'm not refering to you. As to your final question, yes I can accept that, but it's really not why I refered to certain women as assholes. It's not your experience at issue here, it's certain women's apparent need for vengeance on the entire male sex rather than reparations.
-
real solution
How about this for all you who want to opt out of kids?
Pay women twice as much as men for any job. Make gender discrimination laws even more fortified, because every employer's going to try to get cheaper men, even though they still prefer expensive men now. Provide 1 - 2 years for maternity with no impact against social security - just take it out of the averaging. Or make the nanny class the domain of men, so women don't interrupt their work when having babies any more than an extended vacation would.
Then women can make all the choices they want, have as many kids as they want (or none), and men are just not necessary for anything but the sex and companionship. If men want to be part of a family, be loved, enjoyed simply for having around, and needed only as a human needs another as we are social creatures needing durable partners and friends, then all men have to do is stick around.
-
Yes to labor issues! No to over-the-counter Plan B!
Toshiro wrote:
As for who would pick up the tab for the child, abortion itself wouldn't be an issue if we provided labor with real rights that gave people the means to take care of themselves.
HELL YES! What is it 1 in 4, 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion? That's way too much. If 1 in 4 or 5 pregnant women want an abortion, something is very wrong with our society. Instead of making abortion illegal, we should be working on the factors that make women want them to begin with. Labor issues being one. As long as we live in a culture that exploits workers, people are going to want abortions. This is one of the reasons abortion rates went down under Clinton, and back up under Bush. Poverty is one factor. Not that eevryone getting an abortion is poor... but its a factor.
He also wrote:
Also making things like the morning after pill over the counter.
I've taken the morning after pill. It felt like someone jammed a fist into my uterus, grabbed a handful, and squeezed. It was like period cramps times ten. I realize not everyone reacts to it like that, but this is NOT a medication that should be over-the-counter. It's a whole bunch of hormones. It isn't like aspirin. You should see a doctor before you take it. Like the patch, or the pill.
-
Judy
See, what you propose is discrimination. You don't seem to grab the concept of what I'm saying so let me spell it out a little better. We. Need. To. Find. A. So-lu-tion. Which. Di-scrim-in-ates. Against. Neither. Party.
Knowing how much it costs, financially, to raise a kid is exactly why I brought up labor rights. Labor rights which puts the power of the economy into the hands of labor is beneficial to both men and women, not to mention the nation as a whole, not either or like your solution.
Nicole re: Plan B
On the flip side, and you've already acknowledged this, I've known women who've taken it without any severe reactions. The FDA ruled it was safe for over the counter sale, so I'd imagine that the hormone dump (isn't it just a bunch of estrogen? Pardon me for not knowing since I don't exactly have the plumbing necessary for the concern) is relatively safe even if discomforting momentarily. Though we can agree to disagree since I kinda threw that in there as more of a side thought. The labor rights is where I really want to see most of the focus.
-
If this were to come to pass...
Pay women twice as much as men for any job. Make gender discrimination laws even more fortified, because every employer's going to try to get cheaper men, even though they still prefer expensive men now. Provide 1 - 2 years for maternity with no impact against social security - just take it out of the averaging. Or make the nanny class the domain of men, so women don't interrupt their work when having babies any more than an extended vacation would.
-----------------------------------------
Men are still judged, by women and society, largely by the money in their pockets and the socialpower they exude. If we fixed whats proposed above, and it is rightfully changing, then gosh who would women date? A women making 50k a year doesnt go for the guy next to her making 50k a year, and definitely not the guy making 30k a year, she desires her boss making 75k a year. The bottom line is women still go for the guy makes them feel safe. Taller guys, and power junkies. When women start going after the nice guys making 30k a year working the library, then men will stop pushing for the high stress jobs that pay well but kill you at 55 because you log 80 hours a week at the office. Women have tremendous control over how men behave simply by who they sex it up with. Currently women still go for a$$holes and alpha males, not the guys actually practicing what feminists preach. Loud rude frat guys, numbskull jocks, alpha buisiness guys and corporate jerks. When women put their vagina where their mouth is and actually start f*cking the kindergarden teacher or the male nanny, then men will change thier attitudes accordingly. And men, can you actually imagine putting up your profile on the internet, or walking into a bar proposing yourself as a future house husband, with no income to speak of. Imagine how many numbers youd get then, ZERO, the silence would be defening.