Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 4 Jan 1993 17:49:56 CST
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Boy, are we ever hearing a lot about "Consequences," a men-only co

Oh God, I'm agreeing with Wharfie now !

Wharfie is right. There is no balance in this position.

Now, as I'm sure some who have read this channel before have gathered, my
general opinion of the opposite sex is not very high - something I readily
acknowledge. However, gentlemen, ask yourselves one thing - in your debates
with women about men's issues, have you ever seen them give ground ? Have you
ever seen a discriminitory, antimale policy overturned politically ?

I doubt it. Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that the other side is
intransigent. (I loved the phrase "dogmatic slumber" - it fits so many
attitudes I've encountered so perfectly. Thanks.) No matter how long or how
reasonably you talk to them, you just won't reach them - so why bother ? You're
just wasting your time. Either use force in some form, or just give up and
accept the situation. What good is persuasion when the other side is wrong,
knows it, and doesn't care ? So you convince them that their position is
indefensible. So what ? Maybe they knew that already, but their position gives
them something that they want. To know what is ethical is no guarantee of
ethical behavior.

Consider the absurdity of arguing about the origins of property rights with a
mugger who has just taken your wallet, and you'll see what I'm getting at.
This attempt is going nowhere.

So, alternatives ?

     1. Live with the current situation as best you can.

                Drawbacks made painfully clear by previous posters.

     2. Change social policy through violent means.

                Well, it would work, there's no denying that. A real gender war
                would be a mighty one-sided affair. There is ample precedent
                (as much as I prefer Dr. King philisophically, there can be
                little doubt, I'm afraid, that Malcolm X caused more change).
                Aside from the obvious legal risks to the participants, however
                I'd point out that such violence, once begun, never seems to
                end. The harm to society is pretty obvious - noone would ever
                sleep easily again. This is a last resort - if even that.

     3. Policy retribution

                This, one might say, is a milder form of alternative 2. One
                takes some policy which would be distasteful to the majority
                of women, but liked by a substantial majority - shall we say
                the elimination of abortion rights. Now, if you combine the
                male vote with the anti-choice female vote - guess what ?
                You get a majority.

                What do you know - we're not entirely powerless after all !
                This is one potent threat toward any woman who wants a career.
                She either stays celibate, or risks losing her career in many
                cases. And don't you believe option one is too easy. Hang
                around a few women in their late 30's who haven't seen a date
                in a while. The adolescent male sex drive pales by comparison.

                In short, make it clear that what goes around, comes around. If
                they are going to take a hard line with us (and they have) -
                let us return the favor. With the help of the bible belt female
                population, we can nullify every bit of progress made in the
                area of women's rights made in the last few decades. We could
                probably even get the sufferage amendment repealed this way.

                Am I in favor of this ? Only as a form of leverage. Threats ?
                Yes, I am endorsing the practice of making threats when one is
                being stonewalled. Feminists aren't too shy about using force
                to meet their goals (after all, what else is the policy being
                supported here (father's lack of choice) but the advocacy of
                force in the given situation). Ever see the withholding of
                sex used as a weapon (pretty much the point of seperatist
                feminism - let's soften them up by denying their needs) ?
                Women can't have it both ways - if they can use ultimatums,
                so can we. They've used coercion and legal force, and that
                gives us the right to do the same.

                In short (too late for that ? :) ), the demand here is that we
                refrain from negotiating too forcefully (while they feel free
                to use whichever tactic suits them) is patently absurd, and we
                should laugh it off. It is reminiscent of the times when a
                little girl will run up to a little boy on a playground, hit
                him, then whine when he hits back. Sorry, but in a fight, both
                sides have a right (if not an obligation) to stick up for
                themselves.       Deal with it.

                Let us roll back the feminist agenda until we start
                seeing some real concessions. Glass ceiling ?
                Let's reinforce it with a little steel !

     4.  For those of us who know that we don't want children (be sure to
         think about it for at least a few years so you are sure), it would
         seem obvious that sterilization should be a consideration. Why not ?
         Consider the trouble it might save you. And ask yourself - given the
         eager willingness of the opposite sex to trample our rights, can you
         ever trust them enough to establish a permanent relationship ?

                                                   J. Dunphy

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion