____________________________________________________________
“Men
should
be
like
Kleenex.
Soft,
strong
and
disposable.”
Cher
____________________________________________________________
The
world
can
be
divided
into
two
camps,
one
camp
believes
that
men
are
disposable
and
the
other
believes
that
men
deserve
the
same
choice
and
compassion
that
is
afforded
to
women.
The
first
camp
is
almost
everyone
and
the
later
is
as
rare
as
a
purple
sheep.
Almost
everyone
believes
that
men
“should.”
You
know,
men
should
die
in
wars,
men
should
die
at
dangerous
jobs,
men
should
work
full
time
to
provide
for
a
family,
men
should
be
the
protectors
etc.
Whether
it
is
the
media,
our
legislatures,
our
universities,
our
entertainment
industry,
our
courts
or
the
general
public,
the
default
assumption
is
that
men
are
disposable.
Men
SHOULD
ignore
their
own
needs
and
focus
on
the
needs
of
others.
It
is
so
much
the
default
that
most
people
have
never
considered
anything
else.
It’s
like
asking
a
fish
about
water.
It’s
what
he
lives
in,
what
he
is
swimming
in
and
his
entire
world
revolves
around
it.
Try
telling
mr
fish
that
he
has
water
all
wrong
and
see
what
happens.
Even
more
interesting
is
to
try
and
tell
someone
from
the
“men
should”
MAD
(Men
Are
Disposable)
camp
that
men
deserve
compassion
and
choice.
You
will
usually
get
fireworks
since
these
concepts
go
against
the
grain
of
men
being
disposable.
You
don’t
offer
compassion
to
a
plastic
fork,
or
a
paper
towel.
Those
are
disposable.
Just
toss
them
out.
You
don’t
give
those
who
are
disposable
choice
and
compassion.
Take
Hillary
Clinton
as
an
example.
It
was
the
default
cultural
belief
of
the
disposability
of
men
that
allowed
her
to
say
“Women
are
the
primary
victims
of
war.”
If
anyone
had
compassion
for
men
they
would
have
cried
out
at
the
insensitivity
and
hatred
that
such
a
statement
carries
as
it
ignores
the
pain
and
suffering
of
millions
of
dead
men.
Just
imagine
Bill
Clinton
saying
“Men
are
the
primary
victims
of
breast
cancer.”
He
would
take
a
terrible
political
beating.
Even
though
he
is
using
the
same
basic
idea
as
Hillary,
that
those
left
behind
are
the
ones
who
are
the
primary
victims.
Somehow
it
just
won’t
fly
if
men
are
those
who
are
being
left.
Why
not?
Because
men
are
seen
as
disposable
and
conjuring
up
compassion
towards
them
is
beyond
most
people.
But
why
is
that?
Why
is
there
a
connection
between
being
seen
as
disposable
and
then
not
giving
choice
and
compassion
to
that
group?
Have
you
ever
known
anyone
who
owned
a
large
pet
snake?
Those
who
own
large
snakes
as
pets
need
to
feed
them.
Guess
what
the
diet
is?
Little
teeny
mice.
They
go
to
the
local
pet
store
and
load
up
on
these
little
twinkies
and
keep
them
handy
for
feeding
time.
Does
the
owner
have
an
urge
to
get
close
to
the
mice?
No.
Does
he
have
endearing
names
for
them?
No.
He
stays
detached
from
them
and
uses
them
as
fuel,
not
as
beloved
pets.
These
mice
don’t
get
any
compassion,
that
would
be
silly.
They
also
don’t
get
any
choice
about
their
lives,
they
are
simply
there
to
sustain
the
life
of
something
much
more
beloved.
When
you
are
the
disposable
one
you
will
rarely
get
compassion
and
choice.
Just
imagine
that
the
snake
owner
decided
to
give
a
mouse
choice.
What
do
you
think
the
mouse
would
say?
He
would
likely
say
“No,
I
choose
to
not
be
eaten
by
the
snake.
Then
other
mice
would
do
the
same
thing
and
how
would
the
owner
feed
his
beloved
pet
if
the
mice
went
on
a
disposability
strike?
And
what
would
happen
to
our
culture
if
men
went
on
a
disposability
strike?
We
can
see
this
in
microcosm
when
someone
suggests
that
men
deserve
choice
and
compassion.
In
other
words,
when
someone
asks
for
a
man
to
be
relieved
of
his
disposability.
(Maybe
suggesting
that
men
get
services
as
victims
of
domestic
violence
or
some
other
situation
where
compassion
is
considered
for
men.)
What
happens?
What
is
the
defense
against
a
man
escaping
disposability?
The
MAD
people
get
upset
and
the
first
line
of
defense
is
to
call
the
messenger
a
whiner.
He’s
not
a
real
man.
A
real
man
would
just
let
himself
get
eaten
by
the
snake!
Next
they
turn
to
calling
him
a
fanatic,
hostile,
a
loser,
a
lunatic,
and
my
personal
favorite,
a
hater
of
women.
Mice
must
hate
the
snake
if
they
refuse
to
be
eaten!
How
will
the
snake
survive?
You
mean
mouse!
This
mouse
doesn’t
care
about
the
snake
(women)
at
all,
he
is
putting
his
own
needs
first.
They
are
more
interested
in
their
own
lives
than
they
are
in
dying
for
the benefit of
the
snake.
All
of
this
arm
waving
by
all
of
these
MAD
people
is
simply
a
diversion
from
discussing
the
importance
of
treating
everyone
with
compassion
and
offering
as
much
choice
as
is
possible
to
each.
In
today’s
world
men
rarely
see
compassion.
We
don’t
have
anything
near
true
equality.
If
we
give
men
choice
and
compassion
what
will
happen?
Will
they
choose
to
stop
dying
in
wars?
Who
will
die
then?
Women?
Nearly
100%
of
people
would
not
accept
that.
Women
are
not
disposable.
Will
men
stop
laying
down
their
lives
for
others?
Will
they
choose
jobs
as
secretaries
rather
than
risk
death
on
jobs
being
loggers,
roofers,
trashmen,
electrical
linemen
etc.
You
see,
if
men
had
choice
our
world
could
change
drastically.
We
have
experienced
some
change
over
the
last
50
years
as
women
have
experienced
a
shift
in
roles
but
this
shift
has
not
threatened
the
fabric
of
our
culture.
If
men
stop
risking
their
lives
our
culture
will
experience
a
huge
change,
a
change
that
likely
threatens
the
bedrock
of
our
way
of
life.
Think
back
fifty
years
ago
and
remember
the
default
assumption
of
women
being
housewives.
We
have
broken
that
rigid
idea
over
the
years
but
have
yet
to
even
be
aware
of
the
rigid
roles
that
we
expect
of
men.
We
have
a
long
way
to
go.
What
are
you
doing
to
break
down
this
rigidity?
Actual Story on RegardingMen.com
Author is: Tom Golden
Recent Comments