Today, after work, Vale refused to wear a diaper after I took her dirty one off so I let her run around diaperless while we ate strawberry Special K cereal and played a matching game involving female role models. In some ways I’m the same person I was when I was 19.
Ireland finally legalized abortion, which was previously banned per their Constitution. Wow Ireland, welcome out of the dark ages! Congratulations on your long-awaited recognition of women as human beings. You deserve a real gold star and a pat on the back for finally elevating the rights of women above that of embryos and fetuses.
In other news, I unfriended a “libertarian” on Facebook who likened this legislative act to legalized murder. Ugh, I cannot handle the drivel of people who think governments should force 10-year old rape victims to give birth and/or condemn women to death for the sake of human reproduction.
Idiotic misogynists, to be precise.
If people harboring such sexist opinions took just two seconds to think about history and everything that is completely obvious to any non-comatose human, they would instantly conclude there is absolutely no credibility to the claim women prefer big government, authoritarianism, socialism, or collectivism, when compared to men.
Let us start by reviewing the entire concept of government, shall we? Last I checked, governments all over the world, for most of human history, have been instigated, operated, and perpetuated disproportionately by men. Kings, emperors, lords, monarchs, and other rulers of all sorts have almost exclusively been men, with exceptions being in the minority. Generals, armies, conquerors, and marauders throughout all of human history have also mostly been people with penises. Thus, it’s safe to say men pretty much fucking invented the concept of government-related war and violence.
In the United States, women did not even have any uniform right to vote until 1920, much less have any power in government. We all know voting is useless anyways, so to ignore all of American (and human) history and claim women are prone to favor government and are somehow more responsible for irreparably contributing to its current gargantuan form is a special kind of unprecedented absurdity.
Next, let us review some of the worst (big) government leaders in the history of mankind:
- Genghis Khan
- Kim Il Sung
- Pol Pot
This list is not comprehensive by any means, but when worst dictators and bloodiest leaders come to mind, NO women make the cut. You can google some more “worst dictator” lists here, here, and here, and if you undertake a simple CTRL+F function, you will observe that the word “she” does not appear on any of these lists. This is not to say there are none (e.g. here), but this point cannot be subject to any kind of serious debate.
It is also indisputable men have and continue to fill the ranks of the biggest, most violent, statist institutions in the world, i.e. the police and the military. The military and the police are the backbone of any government operation, as they wield the force to do the government’s bidding. Without military and police to forcibly subjugate people into succumbing to a government’s will, laws and regulations are completely meaningless. What is the percentage of women who occupy these professions? They are clearly in the minority in the United States, and I’d venture to guess a vast minority when taking the rest of the world into account. While women (unfortunately) increasingly seek employment in these fields, for most of history, these jobs were occupied by men.
Even today, when women have made great strides and progress against sexism in the United States, as of 2016, women make up only 19 percent of all members of Congress, and less than 25 percent of all state legislators. They constitute 6 of the nation’s 50 governors (see here). Worldwide, women are also the minority when it comes to government power and control. If women “love big government,” they sure have a funny way of showing it, and if men love limited government, their actions sure as fuck aren’t in accordance with that professed affinity.
Any intellectually honest libertarian recognizes there is hardly any difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to big government. The parties differ only on petty issues when it comes to spending. When Democrats and Republicans alike favor huge budgets, huge government programs, a bloated military, and endless war, there is absolutely no merit to the claim that because women are more liberal, that they are more statist than men. So the fact women tend to lean Democrat and support liberal social policies speaks very little to the issue, as men in equal proportion favor other types of equally costly big-government programs. To claim women significantly embrace statism more than men is to ignore most of human history and use a shamelessly selective attention to facts to arrive at a misogynistic conclusion.
Libertarians often point to the disproportionate numbers of liberatarian men and cite the dearth of women in the libertarian movement as evidence women prefer statism. This is nonsense. The vast majority of Americans identify as Democrats or Republicans. How many libertarian anarchists do you personally know? It would be generous to suggest they might constitute 1 percent of the American population. To argue that because women constitute a disproportionately small pie of this 1 percent means women as a whole are more “socialist” and “love big government” is to embrace a stupidity beyond comprehension.
Put another way, a Pew poll has found that 15 percent of men identify with limited-government views, compared with 7 percent of women. In other words, 85 percent of men are statists, and 93 percent of women are statists; thus, the ostensible argument is that although men are overwhelmingly statist, because they are a few paltry percentage points less likely to be statist, they are prone to freedom, while women are prone to big government. Are you really that stupid, or do you just hate women because you’ve lived in your mother’s basement too long, don’t get any pussy, and need someone to blame for your fragile ego?
Yes, shockingly, it is true that if one discards all data points indicating men are also statists in high percentages, one could indeed selectively conclude women are less libertarian. In fact, it is a universal truth that if one eliminates all the data serving as evidence against their argument, the remaining data will support their hypothesis. Who knew?! To limit the sample size to the small percentage of libertarians, and ignore the many (majority of) men who are statist in order to insist on the twisted conclusion that women particularly love and support statism means only this: you’re really good at mental gymnastics and are a total embarrassment to humanity.
Obviously, libertarianism is about individualism, and there should be no blame game as to which arbitrary collective is more “responsible” for socialism, but if we’re going to play this game, let’s play it fairly. Putting aside political preferences, and returning to the more probative evidence, because fuck the preferences – the irrefutable truth throughout history demonstrates men are government. Who the fuck really cares if women like government more if men are the ones who invented it, and continue to operate, control, and perpetuate it in much higher proportions than women? For anyone to argue that women’s insignificantly slight preference for government (if it exists at all) somehow proves a gender disparity in attitudes toward government only reveals the depths of their delusion and idiocy.
The Brisbane Times reports a Catholic school teacher threatened to send an email to the staff and parents of the school at which he worked with a colleague if the colleague went through with a planned abortion. He has been charged with 3 counts of rape for threatening to release explicit videos and mar the reputation of a colleague if she refused to continue in a relationship and have sex with him. The man, who remains anonymous (but shouldn’t – the media should let us know who this vile mother fucker is) pleaded not guilty and claimed he took these measures as a “last resort” to prevent the woman from “murdering” his child.
And this is why women should never, ever, ever have sex with men who are anti-abortion.
Men who are against abortion think of women as less than human, because they value clumps of unconscious cells over the mind, desires, preferences, and bodily integrity of full-grown human women. These are the types of men who would sooner sentence 9-year-olds and 11 year-olds to a lifetime of depression, anxiety, and irreparable health consequences than permit her to abort a fetus created out of rape.
Most people do not value the preferences and needs of plants, snails, chickens, or goats, all constituting one form of biological life or another, over the lives and happiness of other people. Essentially then, men of this ilk who have sex with women are comparable to men who engage in bestiality. They have sex with creatures they perceive to be subhuman, over whom they believe they have intellectual and physical dominion, because it is more comfortable and convenient for their insecure egos. To these men, women are human-like, but are primarily vessels for propagation of a man’s DNA. Therefore, when faced with a situation in which the subhuman creature does not yield and succumb to this caveman’s expectations or desires, these primitive men may resort to threats, extortion, and/or violence to get their way in the name of “morality.”
It’s not that these men respect “life” in general. These same men are not using extortion, violence, and laws to prevent people from killing goats or pigs for food, or hunting bears and elephants for sport, all of which have more mental capacity and consciousness than many early stage fetuses. They are not bombing in vitro fertilization clinics to protest the countless fertilized eggs idly sitting around, or even being destroyed in medical laboratories.
Rather, the highly selective concern for “life” is limited to clumps of cells that reside in women’s bodies, and their insistence on using violence, force, and threats in furtherance of propagation of that “life” is limited to coercing women into spreading genes. Disingenuously, the only time such a clump of cells matters, is when the burden, inconvenience, or threat to life and limb must be borne by a human woman. This convenient concern for otherwise indistinguishable cells is without any ostensible or reasonable basis compared to concern for the lives of lions, tigers, baboons, or zygotes in petri dishes, and can only be explained by misogyny.
These men believe that just as a pig or cow on a farm has no inherent right to determine the terms or circumstances of reproduction, neither do women. It is the farmer who has the right to decide whether and when to increase the size of his stock for the good of the herd, and it is men and/or society who have the right to tell women whether and when to reproduce for the collective good of the (human) farm.
Certainly, if one does choose to have sex with such a base man of this mentality, resulting in pregnancy, abortions can be procured in secret, but why even accord such a disgusting person the privilege to begin with? There is no reason on earth to ever fuck someone who first and foremost, does not even recognize a woman’s fundamental humanity and right to self-determination.
Thus, unless one is completely comfortable with fucking a man who fucks donkeys and sheep, one should be just as uneasy as fucking a man who is against abortion. Because to that kind of man, you are the donkey.
I recently read The Economics of Marriage and Divorce on FEE.org, which raised some interesting points. The article starts out in an informative manner, and is rightly critical of state meddling, regulation, and intervention in the private matters of marriage and divorce. However, the article goes on to say,
Another turning point was no-fault divorce, which was first introduced in California in 1969 and has spread to almost every state. In no-fault divorce, a spouse does not need to prove wrongdoing but can merely claim incompatibility. It is sometimes called unilateral divorce because one party can request it; the other cannot refuse. Moreover, marital conduct cannot be used as a factor in determining the division of property. The arrangement is set by law, not by the parties involved.
The writer cites to skyrocketing divorce rates as a result of No-Fault Divorce policies, and goes as far to quote a Men’s Rights Activist who laments, “You can be forcibly separated from your children, your home, and your property, also through literally ‘no fault’ of your own. Failure to cooperate with the divorce opens the innocent spouse to criminal penalties. No-fault divorce made divorce far more destructive by allowing the state to undertake court proceedings against innocent people, confiscate everything they have, and incarcerate them without trial.”
I don’t think “No-Fault Divorce” should have required a law to begin with, as no one should be forced by the long dick of the law to stay in an unhappy or even abusive relationship, but the reality is the law wants to have an opinion on just about everything, and this particular regulation (really, it seems to be the negation of a prior regulation – Fault Divorce law) happens to be one that is in accordance with the principles of liberty. Consider the alternative. If one spouse wants to leave, should the other truly have the right to refuse and to enforce that refusal? One may not want to lose their spouse and face terrible financial consequences, which are exacerbated by government laws, but the answer should not be to force people with government laws to continue to be legally bound together against their will.
I will never forget when my high school English teacher from sophomore year casually related a story of her marriage to her first husband, who was regularly physically abusive. She literally had to show up at court with bruises on her body, with a witness in tow (a friend), and both of them had to testify to the horrors of her husband’s beatings for her to be able to legally obtain a divorce. There are numerous abhorrent aspects of family law, but No-Fault Divorce’s abandonment of antiquated ideas of people as slaves or property is not one of them. Do we really want to return to the days of Fault Divorce? Is this author really a feminist?
Strangely, this article describes in great detail how financially destructive and downright devastating divorce can be – then proceeds to nonsensically argue the current legal state of marriage is such that marriages are insufficient contracts because they essentially are agreements that “can be unilaterally broken without consequences” …Say what?
Admittedly, one person initiating a divorce and dragging the other unwilling party through unwanted consequences is lamentable. The fact the consequences can be so severe, expensive, and dire, is largely the fault of other government policies, as the writer rightly points out, but the answer is not to require someone to prove “fault” – e.g. adultery, cruelty, abandonment, mental illness, and criminal conviction – or be forced to remain in a marriage. Indeed, for an article coming from FEE.org, I have to point out it is the very antithesis of libertarianism to advocate a person be forced to remain in a marriage unless they prove certain elements of fault, just because some number of years ago they made vague promises to be “patient” and “kind” and to be together “forever.”
While there are a great many things wrong with family and divorce law, this Men’s Rights Activist (predictably) and this author (who claims to be a feminist) blatantly turn logic on its head by suggesting that not forcing someone to stay in an undesirable marriage is in fact “forcibly” separating family, home, and property. This makes absolutely no sense, unless operating on the assumption people are objects, or a means to an end, and that a spouse is legally entitled to the labor and utility of the spouse attempting to dissolve the marriage.
The author concludes, “No-fault divorce removed all vestige of marriage as a contract between two people” and proposes the following:
The simple and proper solution is to return to marriage as a civil contract. It does not need to be a complicated agreement. It could and probably would evolve in the same manner as wills have—that is, a variety of standard ones can be purchased inexpensively in bookstores or online. Close down the family court systems that regulate divorce and which provide lawyers with inflated incomes. Allow the breach of a marriage to be arbitrated in a manner spelled out in the contract itself.
While I can get on board with the idea of privatization of matters that are none of the government’s goddamn business, it is absolutely not the case that No-Fault Divorce is to blame for the failure of marriage as contract. If marriage is to be treated as a contract, it must abide by the principles of contracts, and most marriages do not, and historically have not, at least in the modern era with which I am familiar. The hopelessly vague, undefined, and nondescript marriage vows 99.99 percent of couples currently exchange in the course of wedding ceremonies would never hold up as a valid contract in any court of law (private or state-run).
Additionally, to the contrary, it’s unlikely marriage in and of itself could ever be an uncomplicated agreement. There are undoubtedly some clear indicators of wrongdoing, such as repeated cheating or violence, but for the most part, marriage is a complex relationship of constant negotiation and re-negotiation based on mutual, rather vague, promises of people to do their best to stay together. Sometimes even cheating or violence may be forgiven, but sometimes a more minor offense might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back after years of emotional neglect or abandonment. Regardless, it’s not the place of the law to dictate what constitutes “fault” and force parties to remain together in the absence of proof of that fault.
Surely, some terms of marriage commonly used are unambiguous; promises to be faithful are widely understood. Few people are going to get away with, “Oh shit, you mean sleeping with your sister/brother violates my promise to be faithful?” On the other hand, spouses often promise to “honor” or “respect” one another. They assent to bible passages in the course of their vows to be “patient” and “kind” to each other. But what does this actually mean?
Anyone who has ever read any contract will notice the first several pages of any contract contain recitals and definitions setting forth the mutual understanding of relevant context and certain terms. Well, what in the fuck does “honor” or “respect” mean to each individual? Are you dishonoring your husband if you only do the laundry every month when he wants you to do it every week? Is your husband disrespecting you if he plays too many video games after you’ve asked him to cut down? What does “patience” and “kindness” entail? How patient do you have to be after your husband forgets to clean up the dog poop day after day, month after month? How kind do you have to be if your wife kicks the family cat? Some women promise in vows to “follow” their husband, the god-ordained “leader” in marriage; does that apply when the husband goes on a murder-suicide rampage? How are these terms defined, and how are the respective actions to be implemented?
To my knowledge, few, if any marriage vows bother to define or clarify the meaning or expectations associated with these terms. If a husband regularly enjoys taking a giant shit on the living room floor, is this “dishonor” or “disrespect” constituting breach of contract? And if so, to what remedies is the wife entitled? In that case, would a proponent of Fault Divorce agree the husband committed fault? Or is that insufficient “fault” such that the wife is still without reason to “unilaterally” breach the contract? If a spouse threatens to cheat or file for divorce, but has not actually done it, does it count as anticipatory breach, so that the other is immediately entitled to remedies? Or given the duration and gravity of the relationship contemplated, are such matters considered minor breaches for which the breaching party is entitled to a chance to cure the defect?
Things get even more complicated. Contracts are rightfully dissolved when there is a frustration of purpose. If Alana contracts with Beth to supply widgets for building robots, but Alana’s robot factory gets crushed by an asteroid, there is a frustration of purpose, and the contract can be terminated. As applied to marriage, most people enter into marriage to mutually provide and receive security and happiness. What happens when one person feels financially and emotionally insecure and miserable? This is certainly frustration of purpose for at least one, and possibly both parties, but more importantly, who is the breaching party? Is it the person who failed to take reasonable measures to provide security and happiness to the other? Or is it the person who is insecure and miserable because he/she is simply a difficult person? We don’t know because none of these things are agreed upon in advance of 99.99 percent of marriages.
Imagine the many pages of definitions one would have to append to a contract to be able to define what circumstances constitute “security” or “happiness” for each individual involved. Perhaps one might want to include a clause indicating that if a party substantially complies with certain acts in furtherance of promoting security and happiness, the duty/responsibility is considered fulfilled and the other spouse’s lack of subjective feelings of security and happiness is not grounds for breach. Or perhaps the parties might decide that in fact, the individual subjective valuation of these elements is key (or would that then be an illusory contract?)
Even if we were to force a contract analysis on marriage vows, which do not remotely fit the definite requirements of contract formation, what’s to say the flood of divorces are actually “unilateral”? Maybe the spouse who filed for divorce on No-Fault grounds in fact felt dishonored, disrespected, unloved, and not at all “cherished” for the last 15 years, and thereby finally decided to seek divorce as a remedy for the 15 years of continual breach by the spouse who is unwilling to divorce. This attempt to conflate marriage promises with enforceable legal agreements is laughable and downright wrong.
If definite terms of a marital relationship were in fact achievable, one could begin to make some good faith arguments as to who was breached the contract and the damages owed accordingly, but in the absence of these definitions, marriages that dissolve today and result in nasty legal consequences do not come to such ends because someone “unilaterally” breached a clear-cut, valid, and mutually agreed upon contract “without consequences” or because of No-Fault Divorce. Rather, they dissolve in a messy way because an adequate, comprehensible, and enforceable contract as to rights, responsibilities, and property division was not created to begin with.
Many, many, many people do not make clear agreements when they get married (or any agreement at all), and then become entangled in the government clusterfuck of divorce law when shit hits the fan. Of course, even for couples that do make clear agreements (e.g. in the form of a prenuptial or marital agreement), the government (at least in California) can unfortunately override their agreements to an extent, e.g. agreements to not pursue spousal support or child support. But according to this source, only 5 percent of divorces involve couples who had a prenuptial agreement, so these people are in the vast minority.
What is far more practicable and realistic is for the finances associated with marriage, rather than marriage itself, to be subject to contract principles, but free from some of the egregiously unjust and burdensome laws currently in existence. It is much easier to formulate how to split a house, a 401K account, or how to divide other family assets, than to decide who is at “fault” for the degradation of happiness, security, fulfillment, and meaning in a marriage. When entering into a marriage (however each individual may subjectively define that relationship), it is a good practice to decide in writing or otherwise how to split assets, property, income, and how to handle other matters in the event of dissolution.
Certainly, as acknowledged above, because of bad laws and state meddling, even if people do come to definite agreements, they can face expensive lawyers and unfortunate consequences. However, as it currently stands, while legal fees and hurdles can be a barrier, the majority of people do not bother to attempt to make specific agreements because they simply do not want to. According to the Huffington Post, it is a minority of people who think a prenup is a good idea (44 percent), and even of people who have been divorced, only 15 percent wish they had one in the first place (here). Just take casual poll of people you know, and it becomes clear it’s not just that it can be cost-prohibitive to hire attorneys; a large proportion of people avoid definite, binding financial agreements in the context of marriage simply because they believe it unromantic, morbid, pessimistic, and just a plain bad idea, and this has absolutely nothing to do with No-Fault Divorce, nor is it solely the fault of government.
By definition, freedom is the is the power to determine action without restraint; alternatively, it is the exemption from external control, interference, or regulation. The definition itself is straightforward, yet its application in politics is anything but. Conservatives want to protect people with oppressive laws and militaristic police from “the illegals,” “the terrorists,” the Muslims, drugs, and other various bogeymen, but feign a concern for “freedom” when it comes to economic issues. Liberals might not be quite as rabid about immigrants, Muslims, or drugs, but want to protect people nanny-state style, with equally burdensome laws from banning cigarettes/sodas/fatty foods, to forcing people to buy health insurance, while paying lip service to social freedoms.
In other words, everyone wants to pick and choose the freedoms they support, which is ultimately an untenable position.
Conservatives, who cheer on laws regulating sodomy, gay marriage, drugs, among other things that are no one else’s damn business, should not be surprised (yet for some reason, always are) when they find the government has inflated to an unmanageable size, and has continually extended its reaches into healthcare, private businesses, and other aspects of peoples’ private lives.
Liberals, who cheer on high rates of taxation, ostensibly for the purpose of the “greater good” and “general welfare,” should not be surprised (yet for some reason, always are), when they find their taxes have been spent on endless war, the most bloated military on the face of the planet, militarized police, and a growing police state.
The most recent example would be the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on a Texas law, which severely restricts abortion clinics. One key provision of the law requires that physicians performing abortions have hospital admitting privileges. This aspect of the law was upheld by the 5th Circuit last week (see here). This undoubtedly will limit access and availability of abortions across Texas. But wait, there’s more!
Another provision of the law, already in effect, mandates that abortions be performed in facilities equivalent to an ambulatory surgical center (see here and here). This has resulted in the closing of about half of the abortion clinics across the state of Texas, which should be unsurprising (see here).
Obviously, one motivation for the law was to limit abortions. However, that was not the stated intent. Lauren Bean, of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, explained, “This decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women” (see here). Sound familiar, liberals?
When one exchanges a few verbs and nouns, it becomes clear that this law, designed for “protecting the health and safety” of Texas women, is really identical to the countless other laws, regulations, and restrictions in existence in every other area of healthcare.
The law requires that every abortion (which is a surgical procedure) be performed in a facility licensed as an ambulatory surgical clinic. Every doctor performing an abortion should also have hospital admitting privileges. Arguably, the law sounds reasonable on its face. Why shouldn’t a doctor performing a surgical procedure do so in a licensed ambulatory surgical center (which isn’t even a full-fledged surgical facility)? And why shouldn’t such a doctor have hospital admitting privileges for performing surgery? Surely, this will be a reasonable form of quality control and protect women from “dangerous” abortions. In fact, it’s very similar to any of the following laws:
- Every prescription for medication X must be written by a licensed physician
- Every procedure X must be performed by a provider licensed to do X
- Every procedure X must be performed at a hospital licensed to provide X
- Every medication X must be purchased only at dispensary/facility with permissible licenses to do so
- Every device X for disease Y must be tested by the FDA under A,B,C requirements before being made available to any member of the public
I doubt most liberals have a real problem with any of the above, because certainly, those laws were passed to “protect” the idiot populace from greedy doctors, Big Pharma, scheming hospitals, and other horrible capitalists, and are completely justified. In the absence of those regulations, doctors will be colluding with Big Pharma to prescribe cyanide for profit, and hospitals will be killing patients, because, profits and stuff!
It would behoove liberals to acknowledge that for the most part, protecting people from their own choices does far more harm than good. Just as Texas’ recent abortion laws are designed to “protect” women from from a host of imagined dangers, but severely limit access to abortion, and indisputably increase the costs thereof, so do the the myriad of healthcare regulations already in place similarly decrease access, and increase prices in every other field of healthcare.
Abortion clinics are closing their doors across Texas, which will create monumental obstacles for women seeking needed services. Conservatives are certainly to blame, but liberals are not entirely blameless either. After all, they usually support all kinds of government regulations and interventions in a wide range of other healthcare issues. This particular intervention and restriction upon abortion is just one of many logical consequences of such support.
I’m not about to limit my beef to liberals, though. Stay tuned for the inevitable circumstance wherein conservatives find that their love of big government similarly has come back to bite them in the ass.
Birth Control, whether in pill form or otherwise, isn’t for everyone. That being said, there are logical reasons to avoid using any kind of birth control, such as actually wanting to get pregnant, or a religious affirmation of celibacy. There are also logical reasons for wanting to avoid certain types of birth control, such as health concerns, interactions with other medications, side effects, etc. And then there are reasons that make no sense. BuzzFeed recently featured a post called “We Asked 24 Women Why They Don’t Use Birth Control And These Are Their Answers.” Many of the answers, unfortunately, are shockingly stupid. As an example, I give you Exhibit 1 from the BuzzFeed post:
Well, you learn something new every day. It definitely had not occurred to me that condoms, diaphragms, the rhythm method, and the pull-out method (all recognized forms of “birth control”) could be categorized as “poisons,” but OK. We’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Maybe BuzzFeed phrased its question in an ambiguous manner. This would be a perfect time to point out that “birth control” has had a longstanding and broad definition that refers to a method to limit or control one’s reproductive capacity. Hormonal birth control is merely a subset of this category.
True, no one can really bitch about someone who wants to take responsibility for their actions. Except, logically speaking, a person who uses birth control to avoid a child they are not ready for and cannot afford is also doing just that, so this is not really a distinguishing reason for which to avoid using birth control.
Actually, it is if you want to have sex, but don’t want to have children, like a great, great proportion of women on the face of this planet. Individual minds may differ on what can be done to “fix” fertility, but unless a woman wants many children, she will want to control her fertility in some manner or another.
So now “womanhood” is defined by the physical/biological capacity to breed? By her logic, the multitudes of women out there who are childless, whether by choice or by infertility are not real “women” then – and that makes her a “feminist.” I have a sneaking suspicion that many feminists would not be on board with defining a woman only as someone who procreates.
Right, because sex without making babies is of course, merely men “using “women. So infertile women presumably are always being “used” if they ever have sex. It also absurdly follows that a woman who does not use birth control and has sex with her husband is also being used – except that there are consequences – so I guess that’s OK? Definitely in the running for dumbest response of all time.
One of the crazy “everything needs to be natural” weirdos. I understand not wanting to eat too many processed foods or artificial flavors, but you may want to re-evaluate your very broad claim in this context. OK, Ms. All-Natural, tell this to a guy who needs a pacemaker (an artificial device) to avoid dying (a natural condition/disease process of the body). Or someone who needs antibiotics (something artificial) for a sinus infection (a natural disease process). Also, why not ingest some arsenic or uranium while you’re pursuing the “natural” lifestyle? That shit’s natural for sure.
Everyone obviously should make choices for themselves; but they should be encouraged to make informed choices that are not based on nonsensical, illogical reasons. It’s not nice to make fun of people; I know. But then maybe these women should have thought twice before posing with their self-righteous, supercilious, and highly-misinformed slogans.
These types of pictures always make me cringe. The first time I saw a particular photo of this theme, I mistakenly believed it was an aberration. In fact; it appears to be a recent and unfortunate trend in family photography. To call this “unfortunate” might not be most peoples’ reactions to these pictures. A more common response might be, “awww…” but it is unfortunate, because these pictures are sexist. If you looked at these pictures and thought they were cute, you are sexist. Whether you are a man, woman, goat, or cat, if you think this is “adorbs,” you are sexist.
Maybe you don’t care; and that’s ok. However, when women are taught from the day they are born that they need big strong men to take care of them, protect them, and employ violence to further their purported interests, it is not to their advantage, but to their detriment. These pictures were presumably taken to celebrate or commemorate the arrival of a daughter. Yet, the salient theme for celebrating the inception of this human life is not what goals she may achieve or obstacles she may conquer, but the many things from which she apparently must be shielded. The inane little chalkboards do not say, “One day, she’ll discover the cure for cancer,” or “One day, she’ll out-lawyer you,” or if we want to keep with the theme of violence, “Don’t mess with her- because she defends herself and will fight back.” They say, “We will protect her.”
From day one, the expectations from a female are not that of decision and action; they are of helplessness and passivity. Sit still, be good, and let papa and brothers take care of you. This kind of attitude does not bode well for a sense of independence, freedom, or personal responsibility for anyone. From what, exactly, is it that she must be shielded? Historically and culturally, men beat their chests, grunt, and “protect” their female family members from sexual advances of other men – even when the advances are welcomed by the women themselves. These attitudes are rooted in the idea that women are property and the sense that it is pretty much the greatest humiliation and debasement ever if your daughter/sister exercises sexual independence.
The words “Don’t Mess With Her” and “We’ll Protect Her” immediately bring to mind the age-old stereotype of men threatening other men who dare approach their sisters and daughters. Fathers advising harmless potential suitors that he owns many guns. Brothers threatening to throw punches at an innocent prospect deemed to be unsuitable for their sister. I say “age-old,” but that’s entirely inaccurate. I was at a dinner party not 2 years ago where a man proudly declared that he menacingly advised his 16-year-old daughter’s boyfriend of the loaded shotgun he keeps in the house. He shouldn’t have been proud; he should have been embarrassed that he literally mentioned deadly force merely because a teenager dared take his daughter out on a date. This is not valiance; this is psychopathy.
The idea of men acting as the violent gatekeepers to the sexuality of their sisters and daughters is not funny or cute; it’s base, animalistic, and does women no favors. It’s time for men and women who perpetuate this nonsense to stop behaving like cave people. It may come as a surprise to some, but when inculcated appropriately, women are entirely capable of making their own decisions, with or without the approval from the men in their family.
There is clearly a gender divide here. There are no corresponding sibling photos featuring older sisters and a baby boy. The ridiculous “protection” motif is exclusive to females, perhaps because there is no dishonor when boys deviate from puritanical expectations, and because boys are not property.
Women are people too. Your teenage daughter is going to kiss, and/or have sex with whomever she pleases. So is your sister, your mother, and every other woman walking down the street, because if raised correctly, women recognize and embrace their volition. They not only make their own decisions, but accept the consequences thereof. Get used to it, and stop romanticizing a culture that grooms women from day one to fear sexuality and to accept a demoralizing and pathetic position as an object for male protection.