Men Are Not Necessary

Post questions or suggestions here.
Post Reply
MKFaizi

Men Are Not Necessary

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:07 am

CNN is running a segment this evening with the above title. Fairly daring for a news program but, naturally, they would not have dared to entilted it "Are Women Necessary." Ten o'clock on Anderson Cooper's show.

Faizi

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Men Are Not Necessary

Post by Matt Gregory » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:25 pm

What was it about? I don't have a television.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Are Men Necessary?

Post by DHodges » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:50 pm

I assume they are talking about this book , which came out recently.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:08 am

That looks interesting, actually. Who is Maureen Dowd?

Edit: Nevermind, I guess I don't need to ask that. She's a columnist.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:28 am

Well, let me tell ya -- it was real dumb. One of the worst things I have ever seen on CNN -- that and Barbie and Ken reporters putting on gas masks in Kuwait at the beginning of the Bush War.

I heard an interview on NPR on the way home with the same woman and that interview was much better. Either way, I don't think you missed anything great. Pretty smart woman in some ways but not all that smart. I don't think I am interested in reading her book.

But the interview on CNN really reeked.

Faizi

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory » Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:43 pm

Are there any books on feminism that are actually any good? I would really like to hear someone make an argument that men are unnecessary. I mean besides Valerie Solanas.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Looks like its all over for men - time to fight back

Post by Jamesh » Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:03 pm

Looks like its all over for men



Airlines' children policy 'insane'
November 29, 2005 - 2:13PM

A leading psychologist has dismissed as "offensive" and "insane" a policy adopted by Qantas and Air New Zealand's not to seat men next to unaccompanied children.

The policy came to light when an Auckland man, Mark Worsley, was asked to shift seats on a Qantas flight because an unaccompanied child had been assigned the seat next to his.

"At the time I was so gobsmacked that I moved. I was so embarrassed and just stewed on it for the entire flight," Mr Worsley, a 37-year-old father of two-year-old twins, told the New Zealand Herald.

Qantas and Air New Zealand have both confirmed it is their policy not to allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men.

But Dunedin-based clinical psychologist Nigel Latta, who has 15 years experience with sex offenders and victims, told NZPA he disagreed entirely with the policy.

"I think it's completely insane. It's a crowded plane. For a start you've got to have someone who's sexually interested in children who just happens by chance to get sat next to an unaccompanied child who then in a small, crowded airplane is going to molest a kid on a flight.

"It's insane. It's political correctness and cautiousness gone made."

Latta said the policy was sending an "awful" message to society that "all men are pariahs".

He said some women and children were also sexual offenders "so we can't even sit them next to other children. We must sit them by themselves in a wee pen so nobody can get near them".

Latta agreed studies of sexual offenders showed somewhere between 70 and 90 percent were male but the airlines' policy would not help protect children.

"The principle is just utterly offensive. It's stupid and there's just no logic behind it.

"In 15 years of working with thousands of sexual offenders I've never treated or heard of a man who sexually offended against a child on a plane."

It was far more likely to happen on a bus or a train, where people could get on and off for a small fare.

Latta also suspected the airlines' policy would contravene human rights legislation against discriminating on the basis of gender.

He said people had to be sensible in protecting children. "Change the sentencing and probation laws if you want to keep kids safer. Let's put a little bit more into the primary prevention stuff."

The National Party's spokesman against political correctness, Wayne Mapp, said the policy was an example of political correctness that had got out of hand.

"I think this is a gross over-reaction by the airlines."

Air New Zealand spokeswoman Rosie Paul told the Herald they were temporary guardians of unaccompanied children and when possible seated them next to an empty seat.

"Sometimes this isn't possible, so the preference is to seat a female passenger next door to an unaccompanied minor," she said.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro commended the airlines for endeavouring to keep children safe.

She did not think it was intended to be a slur against men.

Green MP Keith Locke said today he would be writing to the Human Rights Commission asking it to intervene in what he felt was a clear breach of the Human Rights Act.

The airline needed to recognise that "men are people too".

"It is prejudicial to presume that men can't be trusted to have contact with children unless they are related to them or are specially trained," Locke said.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Men

Post by DHodges » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:01 am

Was it just because he was wearing this shirt?
"It is prejudicial to presume that men can't be trusted to have contact with children unless they are related to them or are specially trained," Locke said.
That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the assumption that women have some innate ability, and children are completely safe in their custody.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:31 am

The irony is women do MORE damage to children than men. Weininger said that women should not raise children as it damages them, and he's exactly right. It's just that the damage done is far more insidious.

This whole idea of blaming men is because we CAN'T blame women for the ills of modern-day upbringing - they are "beyond reproach". So we deflect it to men wrongly. Women get away with it all again (as they always do) and we are all "happy" once more.

User avatar
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by sschaula » Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:24 am

It's not that women are worse at raising children than men, or men are worse than women....it's that both sexes are poor at it. I can see the point of not letting men sit near children since men sometimes sexually abuse children. That's understandable, then. I can also see avidaloca's point that women teach children how to be women, which is probably equally as damaging. Both men and women are very poor at raising children though. Women make their little boys into pussies, and men are most of the time neglectful. Women make their little girls into gold diggers or sluts, and their fathers are usually too overprotective.

Adults should work on making themselves better.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:30 am

My 14-year-old son sometimes loves Woman so much so that when I refuse to be Her for him, he becomes her on my behalf.

Unfortunately, because he's the one with the penis, I sometimes have to take to the mop-stick as the phallus (note: I said mop-stick, not broomstick). I don't have to use it, it's just a symbol, ya know?

Eventually, he abandons her and her wailing, screaming and accusations of blame for his ruined life and comes to his more masculine senses -- give or take a few more holes in the walls (which he will have to plaster).

Post Reply