October 12, 2007

Unpacking the MRA "Argument"

THE definitive bitch-slap, from Pandagon. And written by a man, no less. (At least the username is male.)

So in some universe where a man exercising the “choice” not to be a father meant that — POOF — there suddenly wouldn’t be any more fetus, any more risks to the pregnant woman, any offspring to raise for 18 years, “male choice” might almost (depending on lots of devilish details) make some small amount of sense. But in this world, it’s just another way of saying, “I’m out of here, woman, you clean up the mess.”

Oh my.

1 comment:

Paul said...

Theoretically I suppose men have never lacked the capacity to choose wise restraint.

Somebody or other ought to be exercising restaint or practicing birth control in other forms. Just heard a BBC piece on how "sex is killing us." They gave tons of figures; basically it's staggering, that is, how fast the population is growing.

The conclusion was that it's not possible for any species to proliferate indefinitely - it runs into catastrophe.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. A finite sphere; an "intelligent" (?) species that can't even seriously discuss population control as a political issue because we all have to prove our "family values" and love for babies to the point of being willing to bring on massive famine, war over dwindling resources and possibly our extinction.

Sounds to me like a lot of babies will even be crying. But after all, as long as so many of us are willing to be "pro life" and stand on principle, that's what pleases God and God will pick up the pieces after we annihilate our earthly existence.

Meanwhile we just need to recycle, get more miles per gallon and switch the kind of light bulbs that we and the coming several extra billion people will be using. This will buy us LOTS of extra time.

I guess that must make sense to a lot of people...

Sorry for the rant and any mispellings. It's a fosamax day and haven't had my coffee, making me as dangerous as a falling-apart body can be on the blogs...