Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

The Mourning After > Letters

Web Letter

Is it so difficult for Sarah Blustain to imagine that some men may legitimately grieve the loss of an aborted child, and that not all such manifested grief is a backlash at feminism? I was hoping that she would examine a delicate issue with some measure delicacy. Instead, her derisive article borders on misandry.

Timothy Murray

Pittsburgh , PA

Feb 6 2008 - 1:06pm

Web Letter

In the interest of "equality," I want our government to end women's solecontrol of reproductive rights. The debate about pro-choice vs. pro-lifeis bogus; it's really pro-woman vs. pro-fetus. The Roe v. Wade decisionof 1973 gives women the exclusive, unilateral right to opt out ofparenthood. According to the Constitution, i.e., the equal-protectionclause of the Fourteenth Amendment, men should also have that right.Instead, Roe v. Wade and the ongoing abortion debate isbut a single symptom of a greater problem. The US is currently toofocused on its main post-modern domestic policy, i.e., providing for theemotional, physical & financial well-being of its virtuous femaleelectorate: artificially enhanced lifespan, no-fault divorce (i.e.,alimony, child custody etc.), affirmative action/quotas, female-onlytechnical scholarships, (e.g., Intel), VAWA, welfare state, Title IX,taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in perpetuity. Plus a progressivetaxation system (top 50 percent (majority=men) pay 96 percent ofall income taxes) has been put in place by chivalrous males politiciansthat penalizes men while financing said female-specific welfare state,abortion industry, divorce industry, child custody monopoly etc. What afine society radical feminists and their duplicitous metrosexual maleswith their misdirected sense of chivalry have created for the minimallyfranchised, expendable male taxpayer.

Feminists and their duplicitous chivalrous male politician counterpartshave enhanced the "sanctity" of motherhood and trivialized fatherhood,thereby eroding the shoals of men's rights. Fathers have no rightsduring a pregnancy but financial obligations, with token rights,afterwards. Outrageous! Fetus ownership and financial obligation shouldbe connected. If Roe v. Wade nullifies a man's rights, it shouldlikewise absolve him of responsibility. That is not the case, however.Women are allowed by law to engage in maternity fraud (lying aboutfertility) and paternity fraud (lying about the genetic father), forcingfinancial responsiblity on defrauded men and/or the majority maletaxpayers who are forced to finance the feminist "welfare industrialcomplex."

Ironically, there is not a greater embodiment of cognitive dissonancethan the "virtuous gender" and its apparent fixation on abortion rights:it is perfectly "normal" for women that exercise their "reproductiverights" 1.4M times annually (w/o considering the correspondingresponsibilities) by aborting, committing infanticide, & outrightabandoning their children for purely capricious & arbitrary reasons.It is perfectly "normal" for over 60 percent of all child abuse casesbeing attributed to the biological mother. It is a "woman's world" afterall is said and done.

Roger Kuhn

Chesapeake, VA

Feb 6 2008 - 11:26am

Web Letter

"...a single abortion has not one victim, or even two, but three or four or five. And beyond that, millions of abortions have millions of victims: one in four women, and by extension one in four men, and one in four parents, and countless children, until society itself is a victim, filled with all sorts of personal and interpersonal tragedies of divorce, drug use and suicide from which we--all Americans--need protection."

Even an article like this can include some truth!

Dan Eaton

Vancouver, BC, Canada

Feb 1 2008 - 5:53pm

Web Letter

Sarah Blustain says men's rights' activists are "in a muddle" as to what to do about the "double standard" of legal reproductive rights. Maybe someone should remind them that prevention is better than cure, and that there is no double standard on your right to petition and protest for what you supposedly want--namely, funding for and faster access to better male birth control. (For more info, see malecontraceptives.org, these photos on newmalecontraception.org and this article from Alternet.

Warren Farrell once said, in effect, that if we've never seen men on TV or the radio making those demands (especially compared to Mel Feit and his TV demands for "Roe v. Wade for men"), it's because men are taught that it's uncivilized for men to doubt women who say they're on the Pill. He may have a point. However, women were called uncivilized for wanting the vote, but they still fought for nearly a century and no one complains about the Nineteenth Amendment now, so what's the difference?

Of course, the next logical step would be for men's activists to demand a stop to the huge anti-contraception movement (this was a cover story for the NY Times Magazine in May 2006), which hardly helps reduce unplanned pregnancies. To do this, they might have to start working with feminists.

Kira Barnum

Somerville , MA

Jan 25 2008 - 12:57pm

Web Letter

So ladies get to burn their bras, paint patriarchy as inherently evil and tell endless anecdoctal stories about what a tough life they have it "as a woman", but if a man spouts off--or even worse--a movement grows out of multiple men spouting off, men in general deserve nothing better than either a kind of psuedo-sincere, or worse yet, a sort of outright mocking, "pity." (Impossible to tell which from Ms. Blustain's pen; I suspect her soul reflects the same.) Hard to know what to say about it. For me it typifies the end result for a movement whose main ethos--at least as far as its effects on society at large goes--is in the end not much more than "our bodies, ourselves." (Ms. Blustain should go back & read her copy. What a humiliating piece of trash that turned out to be.)

I don't mean to imply harshness towards Ms. Blustain. The fact of the matter is we--men & women together, & our collective offspring--are all in it together. Abortion is not a "woman's issue" just like it's not a "man's issue." This is a profoundly "human issue," striking at the very heart of life itself. Until people like Ms. Blustain get that in the very gut of their essence--that this isn't about those "poor women," or those "pitiful men," or about any other kind of divisive demagaugery that pretty much enshrouds the so-called "abortion issue"--then there's very little reason to believe we can all make good on this, and truly do what is in both our individual, and collective, best interests. Until then, earnest woman like Ms. Blustain will continue to write articles such as this not, in the end, as some sort of informational expose we can all soak in and give witness to, and maybe act upon in a meaningful way, but rather as a clarion call to all those "prochoice" sisters unaware of "what is going on out there." Ms. Blustain's poor sisters no doubt shuffle around in vaguely horrific fear that that great ignorant horde which feminists in general have so much antipathy for are out to take away their precious reproductive rights, and not only that, are dreaming up new ways of doing it all the time, in fact, right down at the local--God forbid--San Franciscan church. If I didn't have so much sympathy for women, men & others who end up in these positions, my retort would simply be: cry me a river, we've all been there.

As an aside, Ms. Blustain should study more closely the life of her namesake. The wife of Abraham, upon finding out she was pregnant so late in life and faced with the potentially horrific prospect of giving birth at such an age, didn't appeal to ol' Abe to go find the local midwife so they could be done with it and could get on with the business of wandering about the Land of Sharon. No, she toughed it out and lo & behold, ended up giving birth to not only a people, but a nation, one that ultimately ended up providing us with the Messiah. Not bad for ol' Sarah. Maybe Ms. Blustain needs to dig a little deeper into the ol' archives; she might be able to brush up on her perspective a bit.

S. Debs

San Diego, CA

Jan 24 2008 - 6:53pm