Law Professor John Kang has a new article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender entitled The Burdens of Manliness. You can check it out here.
Update: Reading over a download of the paper, I am struck by the following statement made by the author:
It's not unjust? WTF? Of course it is. How can a professor of law say such a thing? Perhaps I am reading too much into Professor Kang's statement but of course it is unjust to discriminate against men to benefit women. Isn't liberty and justice for all the hallmark of our Constitution?
Update: Ann Althouse discusses the Kang article and explains why Kang might have said what he did: "Kang denies that he's a throwback to the "the sensitive troglodyte yearnings of the 1980s Men’s Movement," and I hear echoes of criticisms he must have received on drafts of this article." Althouse described the criticism she herself received as an untenured law professor when she tried to get a feminist professor to see that freedom for all (including men) would be better.
Perhaps it is understandable why Kang has to make excuses and precede the article with some kind of PC talk but it doesn't make it right by any means.
Update: Reading over a download of the paper, I am struck by the following statement made by the author:
Moreover, I do not feel in the least that women have stolen power from men, and I have no wish to advance the position that discrimination against men to benefit women is necessarily unjust.
It's not unjust? WTF? Of course it is. How can a professor of law say such a thing? Perhaps I am reading too much into Professor Kang's statement but of course it is unjust to discriminate against men to benefit women. Isn't liberty and justice for all the hallmark of our Constitution?
Update: Ann Althouse discusses the Kang article and explains why Kang might have said what he did: "Kang denies that he's a throwback to the "the sensitive troglodyte yearnings of the 1980s Men’s Movement," and I hear echoes of criticisms he must have received on drafts of this article." Althouse described the criticism she herself received as an untenured law professor when she tried to get a feminist professor to see that freedom for all (including men) would be better.
Perhaps it is understandable why Kang has to make excuses and precede the article with some kind of PC talk but it doesn't make it right by any means.
Labels: men's issues
posted by Helen at 5:54 PM
22 Comments:
"Considering the countless forms of discrimination that men have historically heaped upon women"
John sounds like a typical mangina to me. Yep. Us men? We 'discriminated' against women. We didn't let them fight wars. We didn't let them labour in coal mines. We didn't let them labour in the blacksmiths. We didn't make them build buildings.
In fact us 'bad men' were so 'discriminatory' we gave women the single safest and easiest job in our society. Raising children in the family home. And we defended that family home with our lives. What bastards us men have been. Sure glad I am spreading the word to young men not to 'discriminate' against women by performing the 'provide and protect' role any more. ;-)
Men like this? Spouting bullshit like this? They repulse me. They disgust me. I have no respect for any man who spouts such rubbish as his opening line like it is the truth. It is a lie. And ALL people involved in 'law' are blatant liars if you understand what law actually is.
By the way. Did you ask any of these so called 'professors of law' to explain to you the difference between 'law' and legislation? Did you find out that your so called 'law makers' are not law makers at all? They are liars who fraudulently call 'statues and legislation' 'law' and then tell the sheeple they HAVE to 'obey the law'. No man is required to obey any statute or legislation.
They are not 'law' professors. They are statute and legislation professors. About all anyone needs to know about law they can learn in 5 minutes. No professorship needed. The 10 commandments are a good start.
Just on mens rights. Men have all the rights they need. Its just that most men are willfully ignorant and they do not know where their rights come from. They mistakenly think rights are something that 'law makers' write down.
globalman100,
You make some good points about gender issues, but cut it out with the pretend Internet lawyer shtick with the crackpot theories. You are embarrassing yourself.
I don't even know what you are talking about. Law professors teach case law AND statutory law in law school, in fact my experience was that there is a heavy slant towards the common law roots (and not current "legislation").
If you don't follow *legislative* law, you can be thrown in jail. Or pay lots of money. And that's pretty much it.
"... and I have no wish to advance the position that discrimination against men to benefit women is necessarily unjust."
----
That seems to be a roundabout way of putting it. Can't he make his point more directly?
JG said...
"but cut it out with the pretend Internet lawyer shtick with the crackpot theories. You are embarrassing yourself."
Really? Embarrassing myself?
Given that I have demonstrated that 'The Commonwealth of Australia' is nothing but a corporation and had that accepted as fact by Queen Elizabeth, the PM, AG, GG? Given I have on video and transcript the criminal David Dunkley also calling himself an 'Australian Federal Court Magistrate' saying 'talk if inalienable rights is a nonsense'? Given that this evidence was with Kevin Rudd and Robert McClelland for 6 months and they did nothing, meaning they committed treason?
I rather think I know what I am talking about. Certainly I have the courage of my convictions to take on the criminal cartel known as the 'legal profession' in Australia. And a few other good men are doing so as well.
Further, you are probably not aware that Julia Gillard has been formally charged with Misprison to Treason meaning she has refused to disclose to the Australian public the treason that has been committed by numerous governments. Oh...yes, the entire British Parliament has been formally charged with Treason and QEII has been properly served these charges and refuses to do anything about it.
JG. It is ignorant people like you who SHOULD be embarrassed by your lack of knowledge of what is really happening in the world. But you are too ignorant to have the grace to even do that. Statute Law is NOT law. It only gains the force of law with the human beings consent to be governed by that statute. I have proven this by walking into the Australian Federal Magistrates Court and denying the jurisdiction of the court and I have that on video and on transcript which I pointed to from this site. Indeed. As far as I am aware I am the ONLY man yet to come out of a 'Family Law' hearing with video evidence of the crimes committed. If you can beat that? Please do so.
JG,
"If you don't follow *legislative* law, you can be thrown in jail. Or pay lots of money. And that's pretty much it."
I have rescinded my consent to be governed. This has been accepted by the Queen, PM, AG, GG of Australia. I pointed to all the docs necessary to do that from this site. Many in the US have done the same.
No man is subject to any legislation or statute without his consent. The US declaration of indepence even says so and people here are primarily in the US. That the criminals called 'the legal fraternity' kidnap people and bamboozle ignorant people with complex statutes is just another way of committing crimes. There are more than 1,700 members of the Irish Free Man society alone. They must all be crazy eh.. ;-)
It's actually really funny how men demand to be governed and then whine about how they don't like being robbed by those they begged to govern them. I'm not about to bother arguing the point. Men are so willfully igorant now it's beyond a joke. I was on spearhead for 8 months and only THREE guys bothered to do their reading and realise what I said was true and start their strawman recapture process.
So. No. I am not subject to any 'legislation' of any 'country'. Once I realised a 'citizen' is a 'slave' I decided I preferred freedom to slavery. The 'law' system in place now is Uniform Commercial Code. Try reading. It is good for you.
http://sedm.org/
http://sedm.org/Ministry/MinistryIntro.pdf
Haven't read the paper, but given the title alone I immediately suspect that, in the author's eyes, one of manliness's burdens is discrimination. It's a kind of we-can-handle-it macho, combined with the sort of condescension that the old "white man's burden" evinced from a slightly different context.
The authors intent is clear: He intends to keep discriminatin against men who are not beholden to feminism or sufficiently castrated by the system yet: "...I have no wish to advance the position that discrimination against men to benefit women is necessarily unjust."
His intent is to provide a crutch for the male feminists and those who want to redefine masculinity according to feminist whims: "The Equal Protection Clause should not, I shall contend, presumptively tolerate such burdens on a man’s right of self-definition."
Pres. Coolidge once said "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Unfortunately, this is exactly what feminism has tried to do.
How can a professor of law say such a thing?
Professors of law make their livings by saying such things. Truth has nothing to do with it. It's all about winning arguments.
Ugh, so he's apologizing for saying the Equal Protection Clause should apply to men and then saying he doesn't actually mean it.
Oh well, thanks for the link. I want to read it now.
Helen,
this is how bogus the 'law society' is.
Here is a 300+ page book that describes in detail just how the legal system is nothing more or less than the extortion system of the ruling elite.
www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf
And here is the video Freedom to Fascism from Aaron Russo.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
In it he demonstrates clearly that the IRS is a fraud and that there is no law requiring anyone to pay income taxes in the US. He has, on camera, the former head of the IRS claim that supreme court decisions are 'not applicable' to the IRS. And the man even goes so far as to threaten Aaron Russo in camera, in Yiddish no less.
Anyone who thinks the 'legal system' has anything to do with 'justice' or 'right' is ignorant of the truth. Period.
Anyone promoting the idea that the 'legal system' is ok is a liar. Period.
ALL the liars/lawyers know this. They work pretty much to a script when a man like me challenges them in public groups. They go down the lie-list in a very predictable fashion and the rebuttals are always the same. This happened recently on spearhead and the 'law grad' shut up pretty quickly. My own liars/lawyers tried the same lie-list with me and when I rebutted each point did they say "Oh, GM, I was wrong and you were right, let me inform all my mis-informed colleagues of the important fact common law is the superior law in Australia"? No. They just shut up. They knew they were lying right from the start. Given how big a role the 'law' plays in our lives you would think people would be interested to know that it was completely bogus. But apparently not. As Aldus Huxley said "people can be made to love their servitude". And that is exactly the case in the west now.
Did you know that in Australia a family law liar can drop a client if the liar feels the client has 'lost confidence'? It's in the termination clauses as a 'standard'. You know why it is there? Because to be a CONfidence trickster you need the CONfidence of the mark. It's that simple.
I'm not out to persuade people the legal system is corrupt. Anyone with a brain can see that. It's just that not too many people have brains any more. In any country where a man can be incarcerate based on a lie from a someone who is then not punished for the lie is in tyranny. And that's ALL western countries. Everyone knows it. It is just that only a small number of us have the balls to do anything about it.
Your 'law professors' are all liars. Period. They know it too.
How can a professor of law say such a thing?
Easy, look at his CV.
I see Berkeley and Ann Arbor. He couldn't call it unjust if his life depended on it.
Prof. Kang overtly supports sexual discrimination. What else do I need to know?
Discrimination of all kinds is bad when done by government. Discrimination of any kind is good when done by individuals; indeed, ability to discriminate is a characteristic of attaining adulthood.
The professor is a pussy.
Discrimination of all kinds is bad when done by government. Discrimination of any kind is good when done by individuals.
I'll bet you can think of some counterexamples to both of your statements.
Moreover, I do not feel in the least that women have stolen power from men, and I have no wish to advance the position that discrimination against men to benefit women is necessarily unjust.
Easy to say when you have a six figure Ivy League law professor's salary and lifetime tenure. Prof. Kang knows that as a member in good standing of the ruling class he will never personally have to bear the results of policies he endorses.
It's an even bet that if Kang was fired so they could replace him with a female professor he'd be quickly filing a discrimination law suit.
"Moreover, I do not feel in the least that women have stolen power from men, and I have no wish to advance the position that discrimination against men to benefit women is necessarily unjust."
He doesn't quite mean that. He means that discriminating against other men may or may not be unjust. If he loses his position to 'empower' a woman, he'll howl all the way to the Supreme Court fighting for his job.
JG?
As a devote of Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, even though the a$$ called me an a$$ (which really sucked), this is an appropriate time to quote Twain, as opposed to quoting Buckley.
"... the lightning bug, and the lightning."
discrimination
dis·crim·i·na·tion /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate
To Globalman100:
Could you pass information about how to declare your desires to be ungoverned by any state or commonwealth? If you'd like to publish via a response here, great...I've requested that responses be emailed to me.
Thank you. I'm nearing retirement and would like to have something meaning to do for men worldwide.
very interesting paper. I knew men and women had been treated differently by the courts when it came to discrimination, but I didn't realize the extent. I'm more of a radical than I realized for just thinking discrimination against men is bad. The intro makes more sense now.
Post a Comment
<< Home