"J. R. Molloy" says:
....
> >Women can have sex, get pregnant, and have three months to change
> >their minds and get an abortion. Men, even those raped or tricked
> >into fatherhood, do not have a choice about responsibility for
...
> Here are some more extropic sites of interest:
...
> http://www.panix.com/~jk/antifeminism.html
>From that site:
The ties among a man, a woman, and their children have always been
fundamental, and dependent for reliable functioning on a generally
settled division of responsibility among the parties and therefore
between the sexes. More specifically, all societies have been
patriarchal, with men mainly responsible for public concerns and women
for the care of small children and domestic matters. Always and
everywhere men have predominated in positions of formal authority,
although exercising no general right of domination.
The universality of these distinctions shows them to be rooted in
biology and other permanent conditions of human life. Nonetheless, it
is opposition to acceptance of gender as a principle of social order
-- to what is called "sexism" -- that unifies the things called
"feminism." Feminist goals are thus not in the least
reformist. Feminism treats a fundamental principle of all human
societies, sex-role differentiation, as essentially an arrangement by
which some human beings oppress others. Its aim is thus to create a
new kind of human being living in a new form of society based on new
ties among men, women and children, reconstituted in accordance with
abstract ideological demands.
For existing sexual and family ties, based on what seems natural and
customary, feminism would substitute contractual relations, reliance
on the state bureaucracy, or some presently unknowable
principle. Experience gives no guidance for how to carry out the
substitution, or indeed any reason for supposing it can be
done. Feminism is therefore ideological and radical to the core; there
can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally
gets a feminist nowhere. Whatever harsh things can be said about
anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about
feminism, since the latter seeks to eliminate something that touches
us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other
two ideologies, feminism can be presented as a lofty ideal set up in
opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice, but its practical
implementation, especially by force of law, can only lead to
catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to
authority and hierarchy, and like communism for the unending
radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently the
absolute bureaucratization of society. Both principles are thoroughly
destructive; the fact they utterly contradict each other does not help
matters...
If this is extropic than I am a Hottentot. The neanderthal thread was right on.
Nauseated,
James Wetterau