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.
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Internet rights?
I failed at blogging yesterday 'cause I was busy with Real Life Things. O_o I know. It happens sometimes.
However, today I come to you with A Story. :D Apparently some kid brought a gun to my old high school and shot the security officer dude, and then I think made a bomb threat or something. The officer is fine, and the kid was taken away, but several schools had to be locked down because of the bomb threat. This whole story has circulated around Facebook today, and now people are passing links to his Twitter around, too. And this kid... let me tell you, he's a real winner.
I'm not going to post a name or a Twitter account, or quote him directly, but there were at least 15 tweets involving guns, bombs, and death of some sort. I just glanced over the first page, all the tweets before the shooting occurred, and as one of my friends put it: this probably could have been prevented. But that's where I find issues.
On the one hand, if the authorities had access to this kid's tweets, they might have been able to keep the shooting from happening. They would have had to have access to his location, full name, and school information, but they could have prevented it theoretically.
On the other hand, would it have been an invasion of his privacy? It's a public place, his tweets aren't protected, so anyone can see them. But his information, unless he makes it public, should be protected by Twitter, right? And he should be allowed to say whatever he wants on his own Twitter, right?
So what should be done about these kinds of situations? Everyone's always saying that the world has become obsessed with social media and the internet and instant everything, and it's true. I'm part of it, of course, and I love Facebook and Twitter, but even though they're on the internet I still consider it sort of private and personal. It's my own corner of the internet. And no one can tell me what to post, or not to post, and if I don't want you to have access, I don't think you should be able to see it, police, government, or not.
In a case where monitoring social media could potentially save lives, is it better to protect our freedom of speech, or to violate those rights but keep more situations like this from happening?
However, today I come to you with A Story. :D Apparently some kid brought a gun to my old high school and shot the security officer dude, and then I think made a bomb threat or something. The officer is fine, and the kid was taken away, but several schools had to be locked down because of the bomb threat. This whole story has circulated around Facebook today, and now people are passing links to his Twitter around, too. And this kid... let me tell you, he's a real winner.
I'm not going to post a name or a Twitter account, or quote him directly, but there were at least 15 tweets involving guns, bombs, and death of some sort. I just glanced over the first page, all the tweets before the shooting occurred, and as one of my friends put it: this probably could have been prevented. But that's where I find issues.
On the one hand, if the authorities had access to this kid's tweets, they might have been able to keep the shooting from happening. They would have had to have access to his location, full name, and school information, but they could have prevented it theoretically.
On the other hand, would it have been an invasion of his privacy? It's a public place, his tweets aren't protected, so anyone can see them. But his information, unless he makes it public, should be protected by Twitter, right? And he should be allowed to say whatever he wants on his own Twitter, right?
So what should be done about these kinds of situations? Everyone's always saying that the world has become obsessed with social media and the internet and instant everything, and it's true. I'm part of it, of course, and I love Facebook and Twitter, but even though they're on the internet I still consider it sort of private and personal. It's my own corner of the internet. And no one can tell me what to post, or not to post, and if I don't want you to have access, I don't think you should be able to see it, police, government, or not.
In a case where monitoring social media could potentially save lives, is it better to protect our freedom of speech, or to violate those rights but keep more situations like this from happening?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Adventures in Girlyness!
Second day of Blog Every Day in September (my official name for it until I come up with a better one...) and I've only got an hour and 20 minutes left. XD I'm totally awesome at this.
So I got my first manicure and pedicure today! I don't usually do girl things, like getting my hair and nails done, but my friend wanted to have a Girls' Night thing and so we did it. Honestly, I probably would have saved the $40, but it was an experience, and it was kind of fun to be pampered. :D But it made me think about beauty standards and all the stuff women do to be pretty, and I just don't know how I feel about it.
On the one hand, there's the whole extreme-measures-taken-to-look-hot-for-men thing, which really does bother me at times. I mean, if you want to wax and tan and paint yourself for you, that's great. But don't do it specifically to impress a man, or any one else, for that matter. There's nothing wrong with any of it, just with the motives behind it. Because it seems like every product aimed at women is telling us that we're not good enough just by ourselves - we need layers of makeup, intending to make us look "natural," we need special products for our skin under all that makeup, we need perfumes and certain clothes and shoes, and it just all gets ridiculous.
Let's be clear - I don't care if you wear makeup or heels or short skirts or whatever, if that's what you like. If that's what you feel good in. I just hate how it's marketed, how all the ads seem to say "hey, just change this certain thing about you, and then you'll be totally hot!" I sometimes wear eyeliner and do my eyebrows, because I feel like just a little color is enough to accent my eyes and all that nonsense. :D But I don't feel the need to wax every hair off my body or paint my entire face every day.
On the other hand, sometime I do feel like I'm not girly enough. I mean, I don't style my hair, I don't get all dressed up in current fashions, or even match all the time. I'm just me. But maybe if I tried a little harder, I'd feel prettier or better about myself. And I feel like that feeling is a direct effect of the way things are advertised to women. Because I wear unfashionable clothes and don't spend hundreds of dollars on making myself hairless and tanned, I feel like I'm unattractive, and that is unfair.
I think it's unfair that all of this stuff is marketed towards women to make us prettier or whatever, but so little is aimed at men for the same thing. I mean, men have what, razors and cologne and... what else? Clothes, sure, but it's not such a big deal for guys to wear jeans and a t-shirt every day. It's just not the same for men. Women put so much effort into looking beautiful and put-together every day, and it just doesn't matter as much for men. =/ It's a little unfair, and it kind of implies that women need so much work, and men are just fine aside from needing to shave and smell nice.
But whatever. I guess the whole point of this blog is that I don't know how I feel about these things. "These things" includes mani/pedis, hair salons, tanning beds, makeup, and fashionable clothing and shoes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being into these things or doing them because you like them. There's nothing really wrong with doing it to be more attractive, it just kind of bugs me that the entire industry of products for women is aimed at making us more desirable for men. And that men don't have to do the same stuff, which isn't fair. And I guess that sums up my flippy-floppy feelings on that subject. :D
EDIT - Wow, I just read through this, and holy crap, could I say "feel" any more often?! O_o Jeez. I guess I'm channeling Stephenie Meyer. XD
So I got my first manicure and pedicure today! I don't usually do girl things, like getting my hair and nails done, but my friend wanted to have a Girls' Night thing and so we did it. Honestly, I probably would have saved the $40, but it was an experience, and it was kind of fun to be pampered. :D But it made me think about beauty standards and all the stuff women do to be pretty, and I just don't know how I feel about it.
On the one hand, there's the whole extreme-measures-taken-to-look-hot-for-men thing, which really does bother me at times. I mean, if you want to wax and tan and paint yourself for you, that's great. But don't do it specifically to impress a man, or any one else, for that matter. There's nothing wrong with any of it, just with the motives behind it. Because it seems like every product aimed at women is telling us that we're not good enough just by ourselves - we need layers of makeup, intending to make us look "natural," we need special products for our skin under all that makeup, we need perfumes and certain clothes and shoes, and it just all gets ridiculous.
Let's be clear - I don't care if you wear makeup or heels or short skirts or whatever, if that's what you like. If that's what you feel good in. I just hate how it's marketed, how all the ads seem to say "hey, just change this certain thing about you, and then you'll be totally hot!" I sometimes wear eyeliner and do my eyebrows, because I feel like just a little color is enough to accent my eyes and all that nonsense. :D But I don't feel the need to wax every hair off my body or paint my entire face every day.
On the other hand, sometime I do feel like I'm not girly enough. I mean, I don't style my hair, I don't get all dressed up in current fashions, or even match all the time. I'm just me. But maybe if I tried a little harder, I'd feel prettier or better about myself. And I feel like that feeling is a direct effect of the way things are advertised to women. Because I wear unfashionable clothes and don't spend hundreds of dollars on making myself hairless and tanned, I feel like I'm unattractive, and that is unfair.
I think it's unfair that all of this stuff is marketed towards women to make us prettier or whatever, but so little is aimed at men for the same thing. I mean, men have what, razors and cologne and... what else? Clothes, sure, but it's not such a big deal for guys to wear jeans and a t-shirt every day. It's just not the same for men. Women put so much effort into looking beautiful and put-together every day, and it just doesn't matter as much for men. =/ It's a little unfair, and it kind of implies that women need so much work, and men are just fine aside from needing to shave and smell nice.
But whatever. I guess the whole point of this blog is that I don't know how I feel about these things. "These things" includes mani/pedis, hair salons, tanning beds, makeup, and fashionable clothing and shoes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being into these things or doing them because you like them. There's nothing really wrong with doing it to be more attractive, it just kind of bugs me that the entire industry of products for women is aimed at making us more desirable for men. And that men don't have to do the same stuff, which isn't fair. And I guess that sums up my flippy-floppy feelings on that subject. :D
EDIT - Wow, I just read through this, and holy crap, could I say "feel" any more often?! O_o Jeez. I guess I'm channeling Stephenie Meyer. XD
Thursday, August 5, 2010
YAYS FOR THE GAYS
So as I'm sure you've all heard, Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California, got overturned yesterday! WHOOOOO *throws party hat and chucks confetti everywhere* Go and watch this in celebration, it's funny and there's a bunch of cool celebrities in it INCLUDING THE ALL-POWERFUL NEIL PATRICK HARRIS: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones?rel=featured
It only lasted two years, and after it was voted in, there were mass protests and candlelight vigils and all kinds of things going on in the CA LGBT community. It was a disappointing decision, but any event that brings people together to fight for equality and freedom and love is a good thing in my book. So eventually people protested and sued so much that they threw it out, saying that it violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
Currently there's a stay on the issue, meaning it's basically still in effect as no courts will marry a same-sex couple yet, while both sides are still going at it. The guys against it are all "Let's just keep pushing it back with appeals and stays and ridiculous nonsense so that no one can ever be happy!" and the guys for it are like "Dudes, you're not freaking taking our rights away again. STFD AND STFU."
Also, there's a huge uproar about how Obama is like "I don't agree with gay marriage, but I support equality for the GLBT community." WHY IS THAT NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU? Shut up about him being wishy-washy, 'cause in my opinion that is EXACTLY THE RIGHT RESPONSE. He's saying it's not his personal belief, but ultimately he wants to do what's right. And the people who are like "WELL IF YOU SUPPORT THEM WHY ARE YOU TAKING SO LONG TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR THEM HUH HUH HUH WHY," you guys should also shut up. Being president is hard, and he's doing the best he can given the circumstances, and you should stop having a hissy-fit every time he makes a decision you disagree with. No one is ever going to be the perfect president, but he's doing a fine job. WHATEVER, NAYSAYERS. YOU GO, OBAMA. FOUR FOR YOU.
Anyway. It makes me literally feel sick that this is such an issue. It makes me so angry and so sad that people are arguing this. First of all, the government has no right to tell me who I can and can't marry. It's a personal decision, it affects no one but the two of us, and I really don't see how it's any of your business if I want to marry a woman or an illegal immigrant or a Martian, as long as they're of age and agree to it. Secondly, the idea that marriage should be between a man and a woman is outdated. Back when that was a true fact, you not only would have been killed for being gay, had rules against marrying black people, and allowed polygamy to happen, but also weren't allowed to get divorced or anything. It's a bit different in the world these days, and we need to get with the times.
But mostly, my issue is this: all they want is to officialize (shut up, I'm making it a word) their love, prove to the world that they belong to each other, just like millions of other people do every day. Celebrities get married for mere days, sometimes hours, but as long as it's opposite-sex it's fine. People get married, then divorced, then married, then divorced, then married, but as long as they're all the other gender, that's totally cool. People can marry foreigners just so they can stay in the US, but gays can't get married because they truly want to be with each other, simply because they're the same gender? My friend Erin put it like this:
"i also don’t understand how anyone came to think that whether or not gays can marry should become the entire country’s business. no one gives a f**k if heterosexuals marry. but gays have to ask permission from the entire country just to love someone and declare that love?" (sic except that I censored her - I'm family friendly. XD)
That is seriously skewed logic, there. Why is it different for a man to marry another man instead of a woman? Who is it really going to hurt? And why is that any of our business? Like the meme goes, "Opposed to abortion or gay marriage? THEN DON'T HAVE ONE AND SHUT THE F**K UP."
Erin also said this, which nearly made me cry:
"and if you’re too stuck to accept, at least try to tolerate. after all, we grew up tolerating your jeers of fag, lesbo, dyke, queer, fudgepacker. we grew up tolerating your shoves and pushes. your ignorance. we grew up tolerating a world where we would never be completely accepted. we grew up thinking we needed to hide. we tolerated hiding ourselves from the world and changing ourselves to fit in the narrow-minded views of others.
and we’re not accepting that anymore.
and we’re not apologizing for it any longer.
we tolerated your hate, you can tolerate our want to LOVE." (sic)
It only lasted two years, and after it was voted in, there were mass protests and candlelight vigils and all kinds of things going on in the CA LGBT community. It was a disappointing decision, but any event that brings people together to fight for equality and freedom and love is a good thing in my book. So eventually people protested and sued so much that they threw it out, saying that it violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.
Currently there's a stay on the issue, meaning it's basically still in effect as no courts will marry a same-sex couple yet, while both sides are still going at it. The guys against it are all "Let's just keep pushing it back with appeals and stays and ridiculous nonsense so that no one can ever be happy!" and the guys for it are like "Dudes, you're not freaking taking our rights away again. STFD AND STFU."
Also, there's a huge uproar about how Obama is like "I don't agree with gay marriage, but I support equality for the GLBT community." WHY IS THAT NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU? Shut up about him being wishy-washy, 'cause in my opinion that is EXACTLY THE RIGHT RESPONSE. He's saying it's not his personal belief, but ultimately he wants to do what's right. And the people who are like "WELL IF YOU SUPPORT THEM WHY ARE YOU TAKING SO LONG TO MAKE THINGS BETTER FOR THEM HUH HUH HUH WHY," you guys should also shut up. Being president is hard, and he's doing the best he can given the circumstances, and you should stop having a hissy-fit every time he makes a decision you disagree with. No one is ever going to be the perfect president, but he's doing a fine job. WHATEVER, NAYSAYERS. YOU GO, OBAMA. FOUR FOR YOU.
Anyway. It makes me literally feel sick that this is such an issue. It makes me so angry and so sad that people are arguing this. First of all, the government has no right to tell me who I can and can't marry. It's a personal decision, it affects no one but the two of us, and I really don't see how it's any of your business if I want to marry a woman or an illegal immigrant or a Martian, as long as they're of age and agree to it. Secondly, the idea that marriage should be between a man and a woman is outdated. Back when that was a true fact, you not only would have been killed for being gay, had rules against marrying black people, and allowed polygamy to happen, but also weren't allowed to get divorced or anything. It's a bit different in the world these days, and we need to get with the times.
But mostly, my issue is this: all they want is to officialize (shut up, I'm making it a word) their love, prove to the world that they belong to each other, just like millions of other people do every day. Celebrities get married for mere days, sometimes hours, but as long as it's opposite-sex it's fine. People get married, then divorced, then married, then divorced, then married, but as long as they're all the other gender, that's totally cool. People can marry foreigners just so they can stay in the US, but gays can't get married because they truly want to be with each other, simply because they're the same gender? My friend Erin put it like this:
"i also don’t understand how anyone came to think that whether or not gays can marry should become the entire country’s business. no one gives a f**k if heterosexuals marry. but gays have to ask permission from the entire country just to love someone and declare that love?" (sic except that I censored her - I'm family friendly. XD)
That is seriously skewed logic, there. Why is it different for a man to marry another man instead of a woman? Who is it really going to hurt? And why is that any of our business? Like the meme goes, "Opposed to abortion or gay marriage? THEN DON'T HAVE ONE AND SHUT THE F**K UP."
Erin also said this, which nearly made me cry:
"and if you’re too stuck to accept, at least try to tolerate. after all, we grew up tolerating your jeers of fag, lesbo, dyke, queer, fudgepacker. we grew up tolerating your shoves and pushes. your ignorance. we grew up tolerating a world where we would never be completely accepted. we grew up thinking we needed to hide. we tolerated hiding ourselves from the world and changing ourselves to fit in the narrow-minded views of others.
and we’re not accepting that anymore.
and we’re not apologizing for it any longer.
we tolerated your hate, you can tolerate our want to LOVE." (sic)
Monday, June 14, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
