THE FEMINISTS WANT THE OREGON STATE CONSTITUTION TO GUARANTEE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL SEXES, BUT THAT MEANS FEWER RIGHTS FOR MEN.
BY JESS E. HADDEN – PUBLISHED: 10/31/2014 – SECTION: LOCAL
This entry is part 5 of 6 in the series Fall 2014 Voter’s How-To Guide
Fall 2014 Voter’s How-To Guide
The OFFICIAL Fall 2014 Oregon Electioneering Edition (vol. 1)
PORTLAND, OR — Welcome back to The Portland Intelligencer’s OFFICIAL Fall 2014 Electioneering tips & strategies guide. In this article, we continue with our step-by-step walkthrough of the state measures section of your ballot.
Gentlemen, don your fedoras, and don’t forget not to shave your necks! The feminazis are poised to strike against the very heart of our civilization — and with barely a peep from the mainstream media. How typical of the feminist industrial propaganda complex to conveniently ignore yet another all-out legislative assault on men’s rights!
It’s time to make a stand. Measure 89 is on the first page of the ballot, in the right-hand column.
At stake is a constitutional amendment which prohibits the unequal recognition of rights & privileges based on sex at all levels of local government. This endorsement article will be short because, quite frankly, it’s hard to come up with any reason to oppose this ballot measure — even satirically. Even the Oregonian editorial board itself appeared to have a hard time believing their own endorsement against measure 89, wherein they argued that protections for equal rights are already secretly encoded into the text of the constitution. The trick, they say, is not to amend the constitution; but rather, to rely on the courts to uncover the arcane mysteries of equality locked deep within the document.
Many Republicans are in vocal agreement with the Oregonian editorial, which has thankfully provided them with a somewhat more eloquent (and socially-palatable) argument than simply ranting about how much they hate insubordinate women. That hasn’t stopped state Senator Doug Whitsett, however, from speaking out against the possibility that women might be able to get lots more abortions if this thing passes. Regardless, the Grand Ol’ Party itself has made no official endorsement one way or the other on measure 89.
Getty “My co-worker turns down my advances every single day. The only thing that keeps me going is knowing that I make more money than her. Soon the feminists will take that away from me, too.”
Believe it or not, the ACLU of Oregon has actually gone further in their opposition to measure 89 than the Republicans, by openly endorsing that you vote “no.” But their so-called reasoning is the exact opposite of what the Republicans are thinking. While they admit that we do need sweeping recognition of civil rights on the federal level, they also say that Oregonians have it pretty good as it is & should be happy.
They further argue that we shouldn’t be approaching civil rights in a piecemeal fashion. The ACLU of Oregon believes that until we come up with a draft that addresses everybody’s rights, on the federal level, that nobody should be getting any special treatment.
Yes, that’s right. The state-level organization for civil rights wants to leave the state constitution alone, so that the national-level organization can “better address” the matter.
What a bunch of assholes.
It’s curious how easily that those who argue against measure 89 are able to divine that the amendment is intended to safeguard the rights of women, considering that the text of the measure doesn’t mention women specifically. One might even say that this speaks to a certain telling level of denial. The measure itself, after all, merely prohibits unequal legal treatment “on account of sex.”
It would be one thing to react to such verbiage by denying that “the sexes” are treated unequally in the eyes of the law.
It’s another thing entirely to react to such verbiage by denying that women are treated unequally in the eyes of the law.
If there is one valid criticism that holds up on measure 89, it is that the text of the measure seems to conflate sex and gender, in a way that reinforces a gender-binary view of humanity. That hints at a deeper conversation that our society needs to have, regarding rights & recognition — and the use of language.
Still, don’t be an asshole. Vote “yes” for this constitutional amendment. But if you aren’t going to vote “yes,” then the least that you can do is refrain from voting “no.”
The Portland Intelligencer endorses that you vote YES on measure 89.