Valentine's Day For Men

Technically, Valentine's Day is supposed to be for men and women, but for a myriad of reasons has devolved into "treat women ronmantically day". So, in order to restore balance to the universe, there is a proposal to make March 14 a companion holiday for men.

Gonzales v. Carhart

I agree with the outcome of yesterday's decision. I think partial birth abortion should be outlawed. I think under current law, and current understanding of the Constitution, it was the right decision.

However, if like me, you believe that abortion is ultimately a political issue, that should be decided by the individual states, then you have to align yourself with Justice Thomas's opinion rather than Justice Kennedy's.

Justice Thomas all but said: "Come up with a case challenging this law based on the Commerce clause, and I'll vote to strike it."

As has been noted elsewhere, this particular case places the parties in an unusual position. Pro choicers are usually people who believe in an expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause, and pro lifers are usually people who support a restrictive understanding of the Commerce Clause. However an expansive understanding of the Commerce Clause supports this case, and a restrictive understanding undermines this case.

Oh the Horror!!!!

The today Show is doing a story about a magazine and company that promotes gender segregated vacations....oh wait, it's vacations for women, with no men, I guess that makes it OK.


Why is it that anything organized for men only is suspect, and in fact illegal in many cases, yet anything organized for women only is OK? For instance, it is OK to prohibit men from playing women's sports, but not OK to prohibit women from playing men's sports. It OK to have women only gyms, but not OK to have men only gyms. There are thousands of professional organizations that are women only, but don't even think of organizing one for men only.

Just another example of leftwing hypocrisy.

Why do women go on women only vacations? No surprise, women enjoy being around other women. Well guess what? There are times when men enjoy being around other men!

What About Real Women?

In a column on TownHall.com, Jeff Jacoby takes the Men's Roe V Wade case to task. Now I've written previously on this blog about my thoughts, and in comments sections all over the internet. I agree with the basic premise of Matt Dubay and his lawyers: under current law, men are treated unequally and inequitably when it comes to reproduction and family law. My summation is : Women have many reproductive rights and few (no) responsibilities. Men have few (virtually none) reproductive rights and many responsibilities. I have laid out my case for this in my earlier post.

The basic premise of Jacoby's column is that real men support their children. I agree with this also. I believe both parents have a moral obligation to provide their children with the best possible environment to grow up in.

However where is the discussion of what a real women does? I believe a real women nutures and protects her child. She doesn't kill it in her womb, she doesn't abandon it in a closet, or even in a hospital ER. If she can't provide for it, she gives it up for adoption. I can hear the gasps flying up all over the blogosphere: "How dare you judge a woman's reproductibve choice!" My answer: Why the hell not? If it is OK (and I think it is) to state that a real man lives up to his obligations and supports his child, then why can't I say a real women lives up to her obligations and gives birth to her child?

As Jacoby says, when a man consents to sex (and sometimes when he doesn't or can't consent) he obligates himself to the possibility that the women will become pregnant, and he will have the responsibility to support his child. Why is it however that when a women consents to sex, she doesn't obligate herself to the possibility that she will become pregnant, and have the responsibility to give birth to her child?

The main argument that supports mandatory child support is that you do not punish the child, and must look after the interests of the child. This argument also supports mandating the woman to give birth to her child, which is why the Left is so insistent with it's nonsensical argument that the fetus is not human.

Jacoby places the blame for the status quo on "predatory males". I agree they are a problem, but I place as much blame on irresponsible women.

If all men behave like real men, and all women behaved like real women, the world would be a much better place.

Roe V Wade For Men

The issue of Reproductive rights, especially as they concern men, has recently been a hot topic because of a court case filed in Michigan by the National Center for Men. It has cropped up all over the blogosphere, and I have been engaged in a debate about it with a blogger named Darleen on her blog. I have decided to revise and extend my remarks in a longer post here on my blog.

The first issue to dispense with is the rights of the child. I believe the child has the right to life, and a moral claim to support from both parents. I believe fathers and mothers should both be involved in raising a child emotionally and financially. But a moral claim is not the same thing as a legal right. I oppose abortion, and enthusiastically support adoption and even orphanages.

The core issue is reproductive rights and responsibilities. They differ vastly depending on a person's gender.

Let's begin with reproductive rights. These rights begin with the right to consent to sexual relations.

A woman has the right to consent or decline to engage in sex. If a man has sex with a woman without her consent, this is the crime of rape, and it carries severe moral and legal sanctions. A man also has the right to consent or decline to have sex. However if a woman has sex with a man without his consent there is rarely a prosecution or any moral sanctions. In one case of apparent rape of a male by a female (S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., ) the courts actually forced the male rape victim to pay child support. Note also that it is possible for a man who believes he is engaging in consentual sex to be found guity of rape because it is determined later that even though the woman consented at the time, her ability to give consent was in some way hindered. (I.E. she was drunk at the time)

It is illustrative to examine the differences in how statutory rape is handled by gender. Men who rape underage girls are "perverts", and usually receive severe jail sentences. Women who rape underage boys are "troubled" and often receive probation. (Quite often we are told that the boys involved got lucky, but we are never told that the girls got lucky) It must also be noted that male victims of statutory rape can be forced to pay child support. (San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J. is just one example) In the one known case involving a female victim (Cf. Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L) the courts ruled that the mother was not responsible for child support.

Once the decision to have sex is made, the issue of birth control comes up. The courts have ruled that even if the women commits fraud by lying about her fertility, or use of birth control, the man can be forced to pay child support. One of the main arguments supporting this is a 14th Amendment argument stating that it would create two unequal classes of children, those entitled to paternal support, and those not. The woman can also lie about her intention to have an abortion. Often a man is presented with a child he knows nothing about years after the birth, and is forced to not only begin making child support payments, but to make retroactive payments back to the date of birth. A man can also be forced to pay child support for a child that is not biologically his, say in the case of adultry during marriage. (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1133517916151 as one example)

Once conception occurs, the man no longer has any reproductive rights. (with one exception noted later) The courts have consistently ruled that a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, or prevent her from obtaining one. Obviously under current law, a woman can choose at any point prior to birth to have an abortion. A woman can also choose to give her child up for adoption after birth. (at this point a man's only post conception right comes into play. In most cases, {but not all} he has the right to assume custody rather than allow an adoption) If a woman keeps the child she can force the man to become financially liable, with or without his consent. She usually has the right to go to court and place severe limitations on the father's parental rights. Rarely is a man able to dictate a woman's parental rights.

It must also be noted that a woman can impregnate herself with a man's sperm without his consent, and the man is still forced to pay child support. This includes cases in which a woman preserves sperm from oral sex and impregnates herself. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html) There are cases in which the man and woman make a contract in which he agrees to provide her with sperm, and she agrees to free him from all parental responsibility including support. (Estes v. Albers and Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd) The courts have ruled that in these cases the father is still liable for child support.

It is simply undeniable that current reproductive and parental laws treat the genders inequitably. Women are given Rights with few responsibilities while men are given responsibilities with few Rights. I believe that the best solution would include limiting some of the woman's rights, and limiting some of the man's responsibilities.

Update 3/16/06: There is also a Supreme Court case (International Union, United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc) that says an employer may not discriminate against pregnant women (even to protect their fetus). However there are laws and cases all over the country that allow employers to give pregnant women preferential treatment (such as extended sick leave, allowing them to change jobs if they wish, and protecting their jobs while they are out).

Double standard

I just say an ad for Axe bodyspray. It has been on a while, but something just struck me about it tonight. In the commercial, a young man (seemingly high school?) comes to pick up his date. He has used the Axe body spray beforehand. His date isn't ready, so her Mom invites him in. As he enters, she evidently gets a sniff of his body spray. The Mom then comes onto him aggressively. So what's so wrong with that, right? Well imagine the gender roles were reversed, and it was a father, and a young girl come to pick up his son. How likely do you think it is that commecial would run more than once?

Gender Selection

I have written several times about the problem of gender selection, but up to now I have been concerned with China and India. It is commonly believed that there are over 100 million missing women because of gender selective abortion. There are millions more men in those countries than women, because of the common practice of aborting female babies. I can't see how these millions of extra men won't lead to armed conflict in the future. The best result would be the conflict occuring between the two. Unfortunately I see them instead attacking Russia and Pakistan respectively. Or the two could collude and attack Australia. If the depopulation of Africa continues I predict both of them will claim lands in Africa.

Now, the practice is coming to America. While I don't expect the same degree of selective abortion, even one is morally repugnant. The only bright side is the prospect of watching the feminists argue in favor of a woman's right to abort their daughter simply because she is female.

MUD FIGHT!!!

OK. Two women were mud wrestling (in their underwear) in Iraq. All of a sudden this is a scandal? Why?

We tell women they are equal, and place them in high stress environments like frontline military units, then get all prissy when they blow off some steam?

That is the way soldiers behave. That is the way soldiers have always behaved. Historically it's been much, much worse. We are not so far removed from the days of habitual rape and pillage.

What the hell is the big deal? And why is everyone acting surprised and outraged?

Man booked in death of fetus

How can this be? Haven't we been told by the left that the fetus is not a human being? The fetus involved was only 18 weeks old (link) That's 4 & 1/2 months. Again we are faced with a hypocrisy. The mother involved could have chosen to kill her fetus without repercussions, but since a father did it, he is charged with murder. We now have a system in which the legal status of a fetus ( human being, or unwanted clump of cells) is entirely dependent on the personal preferences of the mother. If this fetus was a human, and thus it's death a homicide, then all fetus are human and should be granted the same protection, regardless of whether their mother is killing them, or someone else is.