I hate everyone right now.

I believe it is time for another installment of Things That Annoy The Crap Out Of Me: War on Women Edition!

But first - a couple of hot topics I've been meaning to blog about but forgot. The Egyptian revolution! Oh man, how exciting has this been? I've been sort of loosely following it, and I am pleased that Mubarak stepped down and all, and I'm very excited to see how things go from here. And now there are all these other things happening in other places, so it's a very interesting and exciting time.

Also, all that crap about "redefining rape?" Yeah, WHAT THE EFF IS THAT. If it's sex with an individual who does not want to have sex with you, IT IS RAPE. And it is NOT OKAY. And if you get pregnant, you should not be FORCED to have the baby. Grr. >_< Which actually leads right into my TTATCOOM rant! Yaaayyy segues.

So, as some of you may have heard, the House of Representatives just voted on whether or not to remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which is the largest provider of abortions, sure, but ALSO provides much-needed and often hard-to-obtain health services for countless women, men, and children. It is much more than abortions. It is birth control, which would eliminate the need for so many abortions, you geniuses; it is health care for poorer women and children, which they can't get any other way; they provide screenings for several serious diseases, sexual and not, for men and women; and they are often the only resource for teen mothers or single mothers. So obviously, it's a bigger deal than abortions. And now they're trying to cut the funding for it, which just doesn't make any sense to me at all. I understand that you don't want people to ever have sex ever, conservative Christian Republicans, but newsflash - THEY'RE GONNA. And when they do, they should have access to birth control, STD tests and medication, screening for reproductive diseases and cancers, and general health care for pregnant women and infants. Good to know you're trying to take that all away.

On a similar note, JUSTIN FREAKING BIEBER. Have you guys heard about this? He was interviewed for Rolling Stone and asked, for some ungodly reason, about abortion. And he said he didn't believe in it, which is all fine and dandy, whatever Justin Bieber, UNTIL they pressed him about it and asked "What about in cases of rape?" and HE REPLIED THUSLY: "Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason." ... SERIOUSLY, JUSTIN BIEBER? I mean, okay, if you're saying that you shouldn't abort the baby because the pregnancy resulting from the rape happened for a reason, that's slightly better, but STILL. It could have been worded better. BUT THEN. (Disclaimer: I don't know if this is actually true, but I saw it on the internet, so it probably is, right?) Apparently he tweeted, "To all of my fans who are getting mad over my views on abortion: if you were true beliebers (what he calls his fans, I know, right) you would agree with me." Yes. If you were truly FANS OF MY POP MUSIC, you would AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY. This is how cults happen, people. He's got 7 million followers on Twitter, most of them teen girls who will soon be voting, and he's feeding them this crap. Awesome. Screw you, Justin Bieber.

Third, Lara Logan, the reporter who was sexually assaulted in Egypt last week, and the comments surrounding her attack. Specifically, the ones who are saying she SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED IT, or that she is SOMEHOW TO BLAME. Victim-blaming is never cool, okay? EVER. No one should EXPECT to get raped - people shouldn't have to assume that if they do something, they will get raped. It should not be like this in our world. And the people saying that it's because she's an attractive female who was in a Muslim/Arab area? NO. Just NO. So many things wrong here - first, not all Muslims or Arabs are rapists, you idiots; second, because she was in this area, she deserved to get raped? I don't think so; third, we don't even know who the attackers were - for all we know, it could have been a white Christian man; and fourth, SHE WAS RESCUED BY MUSLIM/ARAB WOMEN AND SOLDIERS. So eff that theory right there. I can't even believe that these things are being said. A woman is BRUTALLY ASSAULTED and people are making it about her looks, her being in the area, the attackers' presumed religion? I cannot even believe this.

What kind of world are we living in where these things have to be issues? It is TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN, PEOPLE. This is NOT the fifties. This is NOT the 1800s. Women are PEOPLE, and we have RIGHTS, and people shouldn't be able to just take them away like this. We're living in a country that doesn't want to allow abortion because SOME of our citizens believe in a God who thinks it's wrong (though they don't follow all of the rules that God laid down), but they don't want women to be able to access birth control or health services. We're living in a country that thinks it's the victim's fault if he or she gets raped or attacked, but allowing gay marriage would destroy our morals. We're living in a world where ONE IN SIX WOMEN has been sexually assaulted or raped, and somehow that's all right? Somehow, we're focusing on redefining the terms of terminating pregnancies caused by rape, instead of focusing on, I don't know, STOPPING RAPE FROM HAPPENING? We are more concerned with the "lives" of these parasitic, clump-of-cells fetuses, than we are with the ACTUAL LIVES AND SAFETY OF THE WOMEN CARRYING THEM.

What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with the world?

I can't even think about this anymore.

Musings About Reproductive Rights

Abortion is a touchy subject - both sides feel very strongly about their arguments, the pro-choicers about being forced into parenthood, and the pro-lifers about killing the fetus. But I have a question - has anyone actually considered men's reproductive rights?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm totally pro-choice... but if we give women the right to choose, we have to give men the right to choose or it's not legally equal. If women get to opt out of being pregnant for 9 months, I'd say it's definitely unfair to force men to pay child support for eighteen years.

An example: Some case in Kansas (Hermesmann v. Seyer) in which this sixteen-year-old girl started having sex with the twelve-year-old boy she babysat for, having the baby when she was seventeen and he was thirteen. The district court, and then the Supreme Court of Kansas, ruled that the thirteen-year-old had to pay child support because "the issue of [his] consent was irrelevent." A thirteen-year-old girl would not even be legally required to give birth to a baby conceived in statutory rape, let alone pay anything. The case refers to the girl's "wrongdoing" in quotes - try getting off that easy if you're an older teen male who impregnated a barely teenaged girl. He'd be really lucky not to go to jail.

I just find it odd that no one, including men, has brought this up. Everyone's all up in arms about women's rights and equality and all, but where is the equality for men in the fight for reproduction rights? Shouldn't men get to decide, too, if they want to be parents? If a man wants a baby and a woman doesn't, all he can do is try to convince her to keep it. If he doesn't want it and she does, he can either try to talk her out of it or leave her, and then he still has to pay for the kid. How is that fair? A woman only has to be pregnant for 9 months, but child support must be paid for all 18 years. A man gets no choice in the matter. Where are the pro-choicers for THIS issue?

Now, this is not to say that men shouldn't have to support their children, because sometimes the mother can't. But why not, say, just for the first ten years? Or if the mother doesn't have a good job, or isn't able to leave the kid anywhere? Or if he leaves after the kid is born, he has to pay, but if the mother has advance notice, he doesn't? Why is it required for the man to pay all 18 years? There should be criteria OTHER than "Is he the biological father?" on the child-support application.

And I know a lot of women would be outraged at the idea, but seriously, if you're going to go on about equal rights, they've got to be equal for everyone. If you get pregnant and your man says, "Honey, I don't want to be a father yet, can't you give it up?" and you say, "Screw you, it's my body," and then he leaves you, he shouldn't be required to pay for it. He made a choice before the baby was born, just like an abortion or adoption, and therefore he should legally be free of all responsibilities vis-a-vis this baby. However, just like abortion, there should be limitations: It can't be a form of birth-control for men (i.e. if he's done this __ times, he's cut off); in the circumstances of rape or incest, if the baby is born and the man is identified, he is required to pay child support; as mentioned above, if the woman cannot take care of the kid by herself, he must pay at least the first 5 years, maybe more depending on the circumstances. I think that would work out in pretty much everyone's favor.

What do you guys think?