Male Reproductive Rights
I'm actually not sure which of my blogs to post this on--it's very political, so Chunks, Eggs & Prix would be a good match, but on the other hand, it's about sex, too. Furthermore, my viewpoint on this doesn't match the typical liberal dogma, so it would probably fit better here than there. (There's also the fact that this blog gets more traffic than both of my other blogs put together.) Anyway:
Blogger Violent Acres ought to get a fucking award for what she posted yesterday.
Her post deals with the fact that, in modern America, men have no reproductive rights at all. Read the link. She explains it very well. Honestly, this has been bothering me for quite some time, but I've shied away from writing about it, because I am not looking forward to the inevitable namecalling. But, since the subject has come up, I guess now is the time.
I'll start by saying that the "my body, my choice" slogan has seemed a bit disingenuous to me for quite some time. Really, who's body is it that's legally obligated to provide child support for eighteen years if the condom happens to break, or if the woman forgets to take her birth control pills, or if some other misfortune happens to occur? That's not to say that the woman isn't going to be burdened too, but she at least has a choice about it. She can choose to abort the pregnancy, she can choose to give the baby up for adoption, or she can insist on keeping the kid, and the father has no say in any of these decisions at all.
Whenever men complain about this, we are invariably labelled sexist pigs and admonished that, as a matter of fact, we do have reproductive rights: we can refrain from sex. (This is commonly known as "abstinence", a practice which is absolutely ridiculed by most women when it's suggested that they apply it to themselves--and rightfully so, because it's bullshit.) This is often followed by claims that, since we men aren't capable of squeezing a bowling ball out of our asses, we have no right to any say in the matter at all, as if childbirth and pregnancy are somehow worse than eighteen years of virtual slavery (commonly known as "child support"), or as if epidural blocks or other modern obstetric innovations don't exist. Yes, there's a risk of death or injury during childbirth. There's also a risk of death or injury in the workplace. What's the difference?
VA concentrates a lot on what happens later on, too, rather than just on the initial decision like I have here.
I am certainly not suggesting we return to the dark days when a woman was considered the designated dishwasher/toilet-cleaner/womb-life-support-system. What I am saying is that feminism is supposed to be about achieving equality and equity between the sexes, not about power grabbing by women. Feminism is necessary in order to correct a variety of historical injustices between the sexes, all of them perpetrated by men upon women. Turning the tables, even in just one or two small ways, does not resolve that situation, it simply replaces one injustice with another.
It's been suggested that men should have the right to "abort" a pregnancy if they so choose. This does not mean that we would have a right to force women to have abortions. Rather, for a man, "abortion" would mean having the legal right to terminate paternal responsibilities (and privileges) under certain circumstances. There would be a time limit--once the kid had reached a certain age (measured most likely in weeks, not years), the option would disappear. It's a good idea. Not a simple idea, I agree. Working it out would be complicated. But it would be worth it in the long run.
There's actually a lot of info and material pertaining to this, out there on the web--more than I can sift through at the moment. Do a Google search on "male abortion" if you're interested. A variety of links come up--I have read none of them, so I can't vouch for anything that any of them say. I'm only advocating what I specifically say in this blog entry. (I feel like I have to say this because, I have found, a lot of men's rights advocates are raving, Old-Testament-quoting nutjobs with whom I have no interest in associating myself.)
Blogger Violent Acres ought to get a fucking award for what she posted yesterday.
Her post deals with the fact that, in modern America, men have no reproductive rights at all. Read the link. She explains it very well. Honestly, this has been bothering me for quite some time, but I've shied away from writing about it, because I am not looking forward to the inevitable namecalling. But, since the subject has come up, I guess now is the time.
I'll start by saying that the "my body, my choice" slogan has seemed a bit disingenuous to me for quite some time. Really, who's body is it that's legally obligated to provide child support for eighteen years if the condom happens to break, or if the woman forgets to take her birth control pills, or if some other misfortune happens to occur? That's not to say that the woman isn't going to be burdened too, but she at least has a choice about it. She can choose to abort the pregnancy, she can choose to give the baby up for adoption, or she can insist on keeping the kid, and the father has no say in any of these decisions at all.
Whenever men complain about this, we are invariably labelled sexist pigs and admonished that, as a matter of fact, we do have reproductive rights: we can refrain from sex. (This is commonly known as "abstinence", a practice which is absolutely ridiculed by most women when it's suggested that they apply it to themselves--and rightfully so, because it's bullshit.) This is often followed by claims that, since we men aren't capable of squeezing a bowling ball out of our asses, we have no right to any say in the matter at all, as if childbirth and pregnancy are somehow worse than eighteen years of virtual slavery (commonly known as "child support"), or as if epidural blocks or other modern obstetric innovations don't exist. Yes, there's a risk of death or injury during childbirth. There's also a risk of death or injury in the workplace. What's the difference?
VA concentrates a lot on what happens later on, too, rather than just on the initial decision like I have here.
I am certainly not suggesting we return to the dark days when a woman was considered the designated dishwasher/toilet-cleaner/womb-life-support-system. What I am saying is that feminism is supposed to be about achieving equality and equity between the sexes, not about power grabbing by women. Feminism is necessary in order to correct a variety of historical injustices between the sexes, all of them perpetrated by men upon women. Turning the tables, even in just one or two small ways, does not resolve that situation, it simply replaces one injustice with another.
It's been suggested that men should have the right to "abort" a pregnancy if they so choose. This does not mean that we would have a right to force women to have abortions. Rather, for a man, "abortion" would mean having the legal right to terminate paternal responsibilities (and privileges) under certain circumstances. There would be a time limit--once the kid had reached a certain age (measured most likely in weeks, not years), the option would disappear. It's a good idea. Not a simple idea, I agree. Working it out would be complicated. But it would be worth it in the long run.
There's actually a lot of info and material pertaining to this, out there on the web--more than I can sift through at the moment. Do a Google search on "male abortion" if you're interested. A variety of links come up--I have read none of them, so I can't vouch for anything that any of them say. I'm only advocating what I specifically say in this blog entry. (I feel like I have to say this because, I have found, a lot of men's rights advocates are raving, Old-Testament-quoting nutjobs with whom I have no interest in associating myself.)
posted by cke at 11:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home