Originally Posted by The Rani

If you're going to claim to be a "sensitive guy," you might not want to act like a jerk.

If you knew the half of what I've been going through these past 2 months you wouldn't be talking.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And you are qualified to judge that it is bad science because?

Biology is my college major, I understand the nature of genetics, molecular biology, and the influence of the environment on gene expression very well. Simplistic arguments involving human genetics easily trigger off my BS detector.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, this is a nice idea to believe in, but unfortunately it's not supported by scientific theory, observations by researchers, or what practioners (like me) see every day. In fact, if it were true, people like myself would go out of business.

Actually, if Matt was wrong a lot of psychologists would be out of a job because CBT wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Cute cheap shot there, Arkham, but it's not as simple as that. We do value men who haven't completely stifled their capacity for empathy nor their capacity for assertiveness. Neither extreme is attractive.

Exactly. I find it quite sad that the one with Asperger's (myself) was the one berating other males for telling a rape victim that she just "needed to quit thinking about it" and that they needed to take into account her feelings.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

That is an obligation she chooses for herself -- and only if she forgoes giving the child up for adoption. The man has no such choice. Ever. He is completely excluded from the decision-making process, if that is her wish.

That's because the guy made his choice when he forgot to put on a condom.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Eschatology is the study of final things, both as they relate to individual human lives and the entirety of Creation. Christianity posits a fallen world as a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve, which resulted in their ejection from Eden. Time is progressive in Christian theology, since it leads necessarily from the Fall to the salvation of man by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross at Calvary, to the eventual redemption and perfection of the world following the Armageddon and the final defeat of Satan and Anti-Christ. Christian eschatology therefore points to a perfect future in which the chosen of God enjoy eternal life in a world without sin or evil. This is the origin of all Western utopian visions, however secular the language in which they are expressed, from Moore's eponymous island paradise to Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. This goes back centuries. A lot of modern evangelical end-time literature is actually based on the writings of Joachim of Fiore, a 12th-century monk who was eventually declared a heretic by the Catholic Church for his controversial interpretations of the Book of Revelation.

I agree completely. Oswald Spengler posits a similar idea in The Decline of The West.

Originally Posted by Odin

That's because the guy made his choice when he forgot to put on a condom.

Using a condom isn't a guarantee. One of my nephews is proof of that!

(Fortunately, my nephew was unplanned but not unwanted).

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If his wife divorced him solely on the basis of his having lost a job, that is a sucky reflection on her attitude towards marriage and commitment in the first place ("For better or worse, for richer or poorer" are part of the traditional vows for a reason). My husband has lost numerous jobs (both 9-5 and freelance work), but you know what -- he's a lot more to me than a wage-earner.

We don't know the full story. Maybe the guy lost his job and then started drinking and being violent, or just became an asshole and intolerable for the wife to live with and have around her children.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

This "brief" period lasts several months, into the second trimester for conventional abortions, and up to the moment of delivery in the case of partial-birth abortions.

I understand that last week, there were three doctors in the entire country who performed partial birth abortions. Now there are two. Just as an FYI.

The proper term is "late-term abortion". "Partial-Birth" was a term cooked up by the lunatic Right.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Using a condom isn't a guarantee. One of my nephews is proof of that!

(Fortunately, my nephew was unplanned but not unwanted).

Why do you think us guys are just dying for a male version of the pill?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Using a condom isn't a guarantee. One of my nephews is proof of that!

(Fortunately, my nephew was unplanned but not unwanted).

As was I. In my parents' case it was a slipped diaphragm.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

We don't know the full story. Maybe the guy lost his job and then started drinking and being violent, or just became an asshole and intolerable for the wife to live with and have around her children.

True enough, which is why I used the conditional "if."

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

That is an obligation she chooses for herself -- and only if she forgoes giving the child up for adoption. The man has no such choice. Ever. He is completely excluded from the decision-making process, if that is her wish.

He makes a decison at the time that he chooses to have sex. It is a brief period over which to make the decision, expecially wrt to the 18 yrs it takes to raise a child. But the mother only has a brief period (in some states) in which to decide to give the child up for adoption, after which she is in exactly the same boat at the father.

What would you have otherwise, that a man who conceives a child can refuse the burden and require other men, who are not the father, pay for rearing the child through their taxes?

Am I the only one who notices that this debate is between people who have kids (on one side) and people who don't (on the other side)?

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Am I the only one who notices that this debate is between people who have kids (on one side) and people who don't (on the other side)?

I realized that, too.

Actual parenthood moves you from the abstract to the concrete in a BIG way. I found it to be almost instantaneous.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

No, they don't. At least not in the United States and other Western countries with similar laws regarding abortion. The woman always -- always -- has an escape route, in the form of abortion.

Not after birth. The preganancy is a small fraction of the 18+ years it takes to raise a child.

I have personally worked with children whose mothers had them declared incorrigible and handed them over to the state at middle-school age. There is no real legal limit on when a mother can surrender custody of a child.

A father can do the same thing, if he is raising the child. Not all children will be delcared incorrigible. The state cannot afford to take on the expense of raising all those children and will often refuse the requent unless they are really sound grounds.

There is no legal limit on giving up a child for adoption either. Have you ever trying to do so? How would you do it? I was involved in a situation like this and I was surprised at how difficult it is to do.

If a woman can decide to abort a child before it is brought to term, and thus sever all parental rights and obligations, then justice requires that men have an analogous right. But such a right is not acknowledged by current family law.

If the fetus is aborted there will be not child born. But once the child is born, he/she is not a person with rights too. For a father to sever his responsibilities violates the rights of the child.

Parents can have their children declared incorrigible and surrender them to the state. I have personally cared for such children. I have seen them transferred from one foster family to another, only to be bounced back to my care. A father could not unilaterally do this without the consent of the mother, except in cases where the mother was absent or deceased, since such a move would be seen by the authorities as an effort to deflect mandated support.

And neither can a mother. If a mother cannot handle her child, the court will place him/her with the father, if he can provide a suitable home. THe state only steps in if both parents are unwilling and unable to care for the child.

A person tryign to declare their children incorrigible is trying to have their parental rights terminated, in which case they no longer have an say, but they are also relieved of responsibility.

You simply ignore the children who, once born, are people too. As I asked again what would you have? Would you force abortions unless both parents agree to raise the child?

A child has two parents whether or not they feel like being his parent. You are saying its OK for the man to say Fuck you kid and walk away?

What are advocating?

Originally Posted by Odin

Biology is my college major, I understand the nature of genetics, molecular biology, and the influence of the environment on gene expression very well. Simplistic arguments involving human genetics easily trigger off my BS detector.

Try this then. Nature (genetic code) provides the hardware and firmware. Nurture provides the software and patches. Neither is sufficient in and of itself. But don't disregard nature out of a preference for nurture. I have triplet fraternal grandchildren who have gotten virtually identical nurture and are all very different people ... in fact, dramatically so.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Have you worked with such persons? One of my clients at the homeless shelter was a draftsman. He was trained in CAD-based architecture and could design buildings from the foundation up. He lost his job in a bout of downsizing, and his wife divorced him. In short order, he was ejected from his home, cut off from his child, and rendered destitute by support payments calculated on the basis of imputed income from when he was still employed.

In life you have to take responsibility for yourself. You cannot simply sit by passively and let stuff happen. For example, he should have filed for divorce first. How exactly was he ejected from his home? He has squatter's rights. If he has been living there for more than 24 hours he cannot be evicted without his wife going through a lengthy procedure--and this assume she is the landlord. If they rent she is SOL.

Support payments can be adjusted with a change in income, you have to go to court and attend to business. You cannot just sit by passively.

The man wound up addicted to heroin and contracted hepatitis from sharing dirty needles.

And who forced him to inject heroin?

Some of the differential outcomes you decry comes from the fact that most fathers are much less equipped to handle a household with children than are mothers. More often than not, Mom knows the all the teacher's names and the names of their children's friends, while Dad does not. Mom takes the kids to the doctor and the dentist. Mom regularly talks to other moms and learns about strategies other moms use to deal with the school when one of their children isn't learning. She learns about other couple's divorces and affairs. As a result Mom generally knows more about what to do than does Dad, who often is more focused on career. A lot of time, when a divorce happens, Dad is surprised, he doesn't know what to do, he is unprepared, and so he dithers. Men don't talk about personal stuff with other men, so he lacks the background on what he should do. In the interest of getting it all over as soon as possible he doesn't negotiate as he should, he lets stuff fall through the cracks, and as a result of his inattentiveness, he ends up in a bad situation.

Men don't talk to other men, and that makes them vulnerable. Personal responsibility requires that a man acknowledges this and so pay close attention to his homelife. Don't assume things are OK, monitor the situation to make sure they are, be prepared, and if an intractable situation arises, act first.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Contractual agreements that are actually honored as such. I would allow men and women, in whatever combination, to enter into domestic partnerships of their own definition.

And if there is no contract, what then?

You seem to be placing all the responsibility on the women. Why? Because she is the one who gets pregnant? This is exactly the same reason why the woman gets to make the abortion decision.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Try this then. Nature (genetic code) provides the hardware and firmware. Nurture provides the software and patches. Neither is sufficient in and of itself. But don't disregard nature out of a preference for nurture. I have triplet fraternal grandchildren who have gotten virtually identical nurture and are all very different people ... in fact, dramatically so.

I very much agree. Human nature is a very complex interaction of biology and environment.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course. Males do not have reproductive rights, how could they, they don't get pregnant.

You are missing a very important difference between the sexes. Females (animals and humans) reproduce themselves when they give birth. The child is conceived inside here and enceassrily contains her genes. Not so for males. There is no indicator that is set off at conception. You have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, it may be you child and it may be another man's. Only recently with the development of DNA testing can one know for sure. But males did not evolve under conditions when they know their paternity.

Males in species that raise their offspring (like humans) always face the possibility that they have been cuckolded, that the child they are raising is not really theirs. The few studies that have been done suggest that this happens abour 20% of the time, so its not rare.

That is the reality of being male. We have no reproductiove rights by nature. We evolved under this fact and that is why we have the sort of traits generally associated wiht being male.

To argue that men should have reproductive rights is to try to turn them into women. It's unnatural.

Excellent post, Mike. I find it funny that Arkham berates his caricatured conception of "Feminists" for igoring biological differences between the sexes and then goes on to ignore the biological differences between the sexes. Projection?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It is not clear to me that this eschatology is subscribed to by all Christian sects. (I might have to appeal to Mr. Saari's superior knowledge here)

I certainly don't subscribe to it myself, and though I'm a follower of Christ, I'm no utopian. Never have been. Emergence and evolution are processes, not endpoints.



Yeah, I would consider all that dispensationalist stuff heretical.

Chiliasm was taken up and then rejected by St. Augustine; it was attacked in the Augsberg Confessions (Luther, et al.) and Calvin thought it not worth the while as it was for children's fantasy.

It appears (as does gnosticism) again and again as a Portion of Progress. The Moderns built a dispensational cathedral with flying buttresses and stained-glass rose windows upon the matter of Millennialism and it is still an important item in Americanist Xian world views. Credal Xians are usually not that interested in the matter; but are Amillennial if questioned. And can be quite cross with Millennialists (see Cahors) on occasions.

I don't think all Dispensationalism is a matter of heresy; it is sadly an attempt to make God's entrance into History (which is into an Artful {Good, Beautiful & True} record) into a timelined Scientific Report so as to be "with it". It is itself a Progressive Project using the means of Progress to a Progressive end (Utopia on other than a spiritual plane). It is concerned with matters to which a long Tradition of Xians are either hostile or indifferent. Just say NO! to the Red Heifers. Or let them be born in their Providential calving.

The American Civil Religion has something of the like in partnership with or independently. Credal Xians often think the ACR is close to heresy (if not idolatry) because of its chiliasm.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I wish we could have a Freaky Friday where Arkham switches places with a woman and we all get to see what happens.

May it please Your Majesty,

Might I request a few lines in Your Majesty's petition for a exchange of Natures upon Friday:

Odin would exchange with a denialist (of any sort-Homo Global Warmist, Unravellingist, etc.) {with provision that he will not be shot}.


Yo. Ob. Sv. would be a Progressive (of any sort-Scientific Socialist, Obamaniac, adherent of Crawford Buonapartism, etc.) {with provision that I not faint with enthusiasm at the hearing of Progressive Proposals}.

Thank you for any action, Ma'am.

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS






May it further please Your Majesty,
As Your Majesty can see I have limited my requests to Rupert's Land. I then realized that I have an antique bell with a handsome leather strap fit for all manner of Bovine-Americans. I leave it to Your Discretion; but I feel that it would Ring as Sweetly and Truly in Massachusetts as it does North of the Mesabi.

Again Ma'am thank you.

Yo. Most. Ob. Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by The Rani to Arkham '80

No, I'm talking about Good in the higher sense, not what is personally beneficial. And of course, when I say that ideas are Good, that's my own personal opinion, not an absolute, since human beings have a limited understanding of the "higher."

Or do you not believe that such a Concept exists?

Originally Posted by The Rani

But anyway ... that post by Arkham made me think of something. Is it possible that you are using the term "the good" to describe what is good for a particular organism, while I am talking about The Good as a general concept?

Aristotelian ethics, which Arkham, Odin, and myself espoused, makes out what is good in terms of what is good for us. It also assumes that what is good for us (that which produces a life well-lived) is well within range of human reason.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yes, this is a nice idea to believe in, but unfortunately it's not supported by scientific theory, observations by researchers, or what practioners (like me) see every day. In fact, if it were true, people like myself would go out of business.

Are we on the same page here? I wouldn't think that such experts would miss out on something that is understood by virtually everyone. No one would suggest that society makes it particularly easy to reach one's full potential as a human being, or that outside influences don't have a major effect on us, but the assertion that the majority of human beings are not in control of the manner in which we live our lives a bit odd. Do we abdicate personal responsibility because life isn't easy? Do we not hold people accountable for the decisions they make?

Personally, I see this as one of the great failings of feminism. You can't go against The Truth and expect to succeed.

What is this Truth, and why does feminism go against it?