I still haven’t replied to Hugo (I will when I have time – I hope tomorrow), but he’s decided to take a break from the debate, reasoning that pro-life men should donate money to pro-life organizations but not be heard.
When I take a step back and quiet my own emotions, I look at my own syllabus for my course on masculinity and remind myself of what this country’s history of misogyny and chauvinism has really been. Men (especially white men like me) have, over the course of some four centuries, taken their fears and anxieties about themselves and projected them on to others — especially men of color, homosexuals, and all women. We have used reproductive policy not so much to protect tiny babies as to to limit the options for their mothers. (Look at any of the traditional arguments against legalizing contraception, used as late as the 1960s, and that becomes evident). Given that history — a history that I know intellectually like the back of my hand — how can I expect my voice as a man to be heard separate from that history?
Read the whole thing.
And Amanda at Mouse Words (who, I should acknowlege, criticizes me for participating in this debate – although I’m not sure if she’s saying it would be better that I not express pro-choice views), has an incredible post summarizing the links between pro-life and a male-centric worldview. Here’s a sample:
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating–that the pro-lifers define “conception” as what makes a baby is a rhetorical device to reinstate the belief that a baby is made by a man and merely borne by a woman. There are many steps in the process of turning raw material into a baby, but only one is bandied around by pro-lifers as the point that something turns from raw material into a baby, and amazingly enough that step is the only one that involves a man. Anything pre-conception (or, with the morning after pill, pre-intercourse) that prevents bearing a child isn’t baby-killing, but anything after a man has planted his seed, if you will, is the moral equivalent of murder. Ejaculation has become the end-all and be-all to pro-lifers of what makes something a baby.
Again, I recommend you read the whole thing.
Oh, I didn’t really mean that as a slap, just a tickle. I don’t hold you personally responsible. Men are going to have opinions on abortion, and they should be allowed to express them. But it would be wise, for sure, to understand that there is a level of understanding that might just be lost there.
As for Amanda’s quote, it seems horse before cart. “There are many steps in the process of turning raw material into a baby, but only one is bandied around by pro-lifers as the point that something turns from raw material into a baby, and amazingly enough that step is the only one that involves a man.”
Yes, many involve breathing, and eating and sleeping, and the like. Some involve dressing up and going on dates. But very few lead directly to genetically distinct from their mother or father human beings.
“I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating–that the pro-lifers define “conception” as what makes a baby is a rhetorical device to reinstate the belief that a baby is made by a man and merely borne by a woman.”
Dramatic but not true. Conception was not defined as a rhetorical device. It is defined at a useful point to distinguish the state when the egg and sperm are separate and cannot become a human being even with nourishment, and the point after they have been joined and with nourishment could become a human being.
You might as well say that ‘sunset’ is a rhetorical device to enforce submission to the idea that darkness is scary. ‘Sunset’ is a boundary description. What you make of things on either side of the physical boundary is a totally different question.
Well then, let’s simplify it a bit then. Conception is necessary to a baby but it is not sufficient. And naturally speaking, conception is no guarantee of pregnancy, let alone birth. As best we know, the mortality rate of week-old human embryos is 50% — before they even get a chance of implanting in the uterine wall. We also know that between 20-30% of established pregnancies end in miscarriage, most of them for reasons outside the control of people. Makes you wonder why there are as many people born as there are in the first place.
If we’re serious about ‘life begins at conception’ then the only women *not* to lock up for murder will be those who have absolutely never, ever had unprotected sexual intercourse with a man. Everyone else has almost certainly *killed* at least one *baby*, usually without even being aware of its existence.
Conception only creates a zygote with the potential to develop *if* it’s fit and *if* conditions are right and given the number that fail, it isn’t really that useful a definition of where life begins. Which brings us back to what Amanda said: using conception as the defining point of the beginning of life says more about men flattering themselves than it does about the issue at hand.
Dei.
I’m sorry. When I wrote that I hadn’t yet read the rest of the article and didn’t realise that Amanda had made much the same point. To amend for my error, let me add this. Seriously, conception isn’t even the *first* stage of making a baby. In order for that to happen, a woman has to have the right hormones in the right sequence in the right proportions to release an ovum, which needs to be fertilizable, have patent fallopian tubes to allow said fertilization to take place ( and with any luck transport it down to the uterus, but we’re not talking about ectopic pregancies here at the moment) and have a cervix not hostile to the sperm. And this is non-trivial physical investment on the part of the woman. Of course, since none of that is done by a man, it doesn’t really count…
The animal that comes closest to the way some men seem to think women work are rabbits. The doe is unusual in having a very extended oestrus and is a stimulated ovulator: it’s the act of mating that results in the release of ova. Rabbits however, have this advantage over people in that does can re-absorb their embryos if stressed by lack of food, overcrowding, or other adverse conditions and the cause of the pro-life rabbit would be a lonely one indeed — if rabbits thought like people. :)
Dei.
Sebastian: it seems horse before cart.
But, in a properly outfitted horse/cart system, the horse is before the cart!
In point of fact though, conception doesn’t make a baby any more than conception makes an adult. Developing humans go through stages– zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teen, adult.
To use your metaphor, calling a zygote a baby is like calling sunset night.
Conception isn’t a medical cut-off point for anything. Implantation of the fertilized egg is what makes a woman pregnant. My point is that pro-lifers are trying to redefine pregnancy to suit their own worldview.
Well, what else would they do? Live their own lives?
“Anything pre-conception (or, with the morning after pill, pre-intercourse) that prevents bearing a child isn’t baby-killing, but anything after a man has planted his seed, if you will, is the moral equivalent of murder. Ejaculation has become the end-all and be-all to pro-lifers of what makes something a baby.” What an absurd comment! It’s not ejaculation that makes something a baby, it’s fertilization,of course, which obviously requires the contribution of both parents.
The thing that puzzles me about this whole “pro-choice” thing, is that it doesn’t seem to be really about choice, but rather about attitudes toward sex and human rights. After all, everyone agrees that one should not have choices to do anything at all, there are some choices that are morally not acceptable. So, the operative word is not choice, but the “right” to sex without babies. Everyone agrees that the right to life is the most fundamental human right, some want to argue about when the right to life should begin. But, where does the fundamental right to “having sex without babies” appear? It should be expounded upon, since that is really what the pro-choice movement is about.
So, the operative word is not choice, but the “right” to sex without babies.
And here we go again, dismissing the pro-choice movement’s work and philosophical opposition to forced sterilization and forced abortions. A right to sex without babies doesn’t address either of those issues.
Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut took care of the “right to sex without babies” long before Roe, by the way.
It may be convenient and self-satisfying for anti-abortion crusaders to obsess about the sex part–those nasty women, wanting to hump like bunnies without making babies!–but it’s dishonest.
So, the operative word is not choice, but the “right” to sex without babies.
Is your concern semantics? Why don’t you see it as the ability to chose to have sex without risking having baby if you don’t want one?
As to where the right appeared, the Supreme Court recognized it as a right we have had all along. Specifically, the Supreme Court did a right to use contraception in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). So, that’s when this fundamental right was recognized. the right to avoid pregnancies as while chosing to have sex. The court later found the right to terminate pregnancies.
If people have the right to go to church and pretend that a wafer is Jesus and then go for Bush, because he’s pro-life (fertilized egg=life, dead Iraqi=not life, I guess), then I have a right to my harmless baby-less sex life.
Technically the Supremes didn’t find a right to terminate pregnancies–they considered whether the right of privacy (which underlay Eisenstadt and Griswold) was sufficiently strong, when balanced against the state’s interest in fetal life, to permit abortion.
===So, the operative word is not choice, but the “right” to sex without babies.
“Is your concern semantics? Why don’t you see it as the ability to chose to have sex without risking having baby if you don’t want one?”
===Yes, my concern is semantics. The word “choice” sounds agreeable but says nothing, unless one specifies exactly what that choice is. One does not have a choice to rape, to rob, to murder, etc. what is the choice? It is just a semantic ploy to avoid stating explicitly what the choice is.
“As to where the right appeared, the Supreme Court recognized it as a right we have had all along. Specifically, the Supreme Court did a right to use contraception in 1965 (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). So, that’s when this fundamental right was recognized. the right to avoid pregnancies as while chosing to have sex. The court later found the right to terminate pregnancies. ”
===Acknowedging a right to “try” to avoid pregancy is miles away from acknowledging a fundamental right to have sex without any babies under any circumstances, even when your “trying” fails. There never has been any such fundamental right recognized, yet that is what the pro-choice movement is all about.
It is just a semantic ploy to avoid stating explicitly what the choice is.
It’s not a choice, singular, but choices, plural. The choice to use contraception; the choice to carry a pregnancy to term (i.e. no forced abortion) or not (i.e. no forced childbearing) as the pregnant woman wishes; the choice to have no children, if one wishes; the choice to space one’s family by means other than crossing one’s fingers.
Why are you fixated on this whole “sex without babies” thing? Do you not care about forced abortions in China?
===It is just a semantic ploy to avoid stating explicitly what the choice is.
“It’s not a choice, singular, but choices, plural. The choice to use contraception; the choice to carry a pregnancy to term (i.e. no forced abortion) or not (i.e. no forced childbearing) as the pregnant woman wishes; the choice to have no children, if one wishes; the choice to space one’s family by means other than crossing one’s fingers.”
==No, the pro-choice movement is not about contraception, contraception is not a controversial issue. No “pro-choice” movement is needed to secure a right to “try” to avoid a pregancy, where possible. One can try many things, no one ever gets a guarantee of success.
“Why are you fixated on this whole “sex without babies” thing? Do you not care about forced abortions in China?”
==Again, someone brings up the issue of forced abortion. This seems to be another evasion of the true issue. No one in the United States, pro-life, pro-choice, or any other group, is a proponent of forced abortion, so the issue is certainly not a part of the pro-choice movement. The issue that is central to the pro-choice movement is a single issue- the idea of there being some “fundemental right” to have sex without babies.
Actually, I’m always tickled when someone whips out the sex card and quits hiding behind the baby thing. We all know that the major reason it was banned and the major reason that mostly men are anti-abortion-ers is that legal abortion means that women can have sex without “consequences”, aka, even if they do fall pregnant, they can get out of it if need be.
No, the pro-choice movement is not about contraception, contraception is not a controversial issue.
Not in the U.S., you mean? And if contraception in the U.S. is “not controversial,” every pro-life group would have a platform supporting contraceptive use; currently, none do.
No one in the United States, pro-life, pro-choice, or any other group, is a proponent of forced abortion
Why do you believe the pro-choice movement cares only about the U.S.? Apparently that’s your limitation; why project it on others?
Acknowedging a right to “try” to avoid pregancy is miles away from acknowledging a fundamental right to have sex without any babies under any circumstances, even when your “trying” fails.
I don’t understand why you believe the right to “try” to achieve an end is miles away from the right to actually achieve the end when means are possible. I named two cases. In this abstract analogy, the first identified the right to “try”, the second the right to “succeed”!
I do think the issue of forced abortion is somewhat interesting. It seems to me the right to privacy, recognized by the Supreme Court, would pervent the American government from enacting laws that require abortion. If we didn’t have a right to privacy, what would protect us from that?
Why the quotes around try?
Because once they take away all the “abortificants” that also are coincidentally all the methods controlled completely by women and the most effective ones, “trying” to avoid pregnancy is what you’ll be doing.
Don’t be silly–we’ll all divorce our husbands, take up witchcraft, and practice lesbianism! Then we needn’t worry about having babies at all!
Wow, I’m not believing what I’m reading here. If I had made offensive comments about some non-conservative religious persons and/or sexist comments about women, I’m pretty sure I would have been immediately blasted for being inappropriate. I guess if you’re good and liberal it doesn’t matter what you blather.
Amanda you have serious issues and I suggest and hope you find better ways to express them than the above cruelties.
And for the record, I’m sorry you think church is a big show where people congregate to pretend all the time. Some of us don’t feel that way about it. Also, the men I associate with do not feature the deficiencies you see in all? of them. Furthermore, we conservatives don’t throw a happy party everytime we hear news that our soldiers (or other living beings) who volunteered for service have been killed. Lastly, if you want more conservatives to recognize that abortion is not about birth control, you might want to spend more time talking to the women having “baby-free sex” about how to stay baby-free. See, when 80% of the U.S.’s 1.6 million/year abortions are for single women and more than two-thirds of them don’t use any type of birth control, claiming that abortion was some emergency or fluke gets to be tricky. For some of us, that is.
Again, I didn’t say that you did. I just said if you’re pro-life, then you best be anti-war or I don’t believe you. Period.
“…See, when 80% of the U.S.’s 1.6 million/year abortions are for single women and more than two-thirds of them don’t use any type of birth control…”
Well, it’s true that about 80% of abortions in the USA are for single women. However, the majority (58%) of women who have an abortion were using birth control at the time they got pregnant, which is much higher than the 30% or so you claim. (Source)
But certainly, I for one am all for more contraceptive education. I think there should be so much birth-control education, and so much encouragement to use birth control, that it should practically be coming out of young people’s ears. On the whole, I don’t think the people opposing birth-control education for young folks are pro-choice.
Another thing that makes a big difference is educaiton and income level; basically, people with brighter economic prospects for their lives tend to be better about using birth control. So serious anti-poverty efforts also matter. Again, I don’t think it’s the pro-chiocers who have, by and large, been opposed to anti-poverty legislation.
So Jen, when you start throwing statistics around, it’s usually customary to give sources to back them up. I’m curious as to where those numbers are coming from, as they seem to contradicts other (cited) stats I’ve seen.
Oh, and just to be clear: 58% of US abortion patients surveyed were using birth control at the time they got pregnant. Another 31% did use birth control, but not at the time they got pregnant. The percent of abortion patients who had never used birth control before their abortion is 11%.
At the moment I do not have access to the statistic I was quoting (I do not pay to subscribe to journals electronically); however, http://www.agi-usa.org/ is the official site for the Alan Guttmacher Institute where you will find more recent statistics than Amp and I were citing/stating. The institute claims (under the abortion section) that 53% (not amp’s 58%) of the surveyed women were using some form of birth control during the month (not necessarily on the occasion) in which unexpected pregnancy occurred. Also, the survey says that birth control was being used but “usually not correctly every time.” This implies that a MINIMUM of 47% of these conceptions did not involve birth control. 752,000. Insignificant? Even much more conservative estimates (as I can admit that surveys can often be manipulated or biased) would still be in the hundreds of thousands.
And amanda, that is not what you said. Reread your comments about pretending a wafer is Jesus, etc. Not cool.
p.s.
Amp, is there a place that guides newcomers on how to create links, italicize, bold, and so forth? My apologies on the above web address.
Double-checked it. Still don’t see where I talked about churchgoers partying over dead soliders. I realize that the crack about the wafers was a little over the top, and I apologize. Of course you’re free to believe what you like. And because of that, I would like respect to believe what I like and not have church-dictates imposed by law on my medical and sexual decisions.
Amanda said: If people have the right to go to church and pretend that a wafer is Jesus and then go for Bush, because he’s pro-life (fertilized egg=life, dead Iraqi=not life, I guess)…
It’s implied here that pro-lifers (esp. if voting for Bush) do not feel that Iraqi people = life and I do not appreciate it.
Amanda, what are you? Some sort of man-hater? ;)
Jen–frankly, I couldn’t care less if someone was “careful” or not–if they don’t want to have a baby, they shouldn’t have to. Someone who didn’t use contraception one time doesn’t necessarily eschew contraception. Yes, they might have been careless. Or maybe they were pressured/forced/coerced by their partner to have sex. Or maybe their partner refused to use a condom (see the previous sentence to see why just saying no doesn’t always work). Or maybe they felt they couldn’t say no. Or maybe they just plain didn’t have the knowledge of, access to, or coverage for effective contraception.
None of these are sins punishable by forceable pregnancy. I’d rather pregnancy be a joyous event, not a punishment.
The AGI webpage on contraception and abortion also says:
[H]ealth insurance coverage for contraceptive services lags far behind coverage for obstetric care, abortion and sterilization, which are included in most health care plans.
I concur with Amp–if you want to reduce abortion, make affordable, effective and safe contraception available, and teach people about sex, safer sex, and contraception when they are young. Punishing women via enforced pregnancies has done nothing to solve the problem.
A lot of people don’t use contraception because they have been shamed out of it, too. A good number of girls I knew when I was younger refused to carry/keep condoms because that was slutty. They would also, on principle, only go on the pill if he was an official “boyfriend”, despite the fact that it’s pretty common now to start having sex before there’s any kind of commitment.
I agree that pregnancy should be a joyful event and not a punishment. Unfortunately, I can’t wave a wand to make women embrace the awesome responsibilities that come along with having unprotected sex and getting pregnant.
I realize that there are a myriad of reasons why people don’t use contraception or abstain from sex. In addition to some of the above reasons, condoms and patches just aren’t that sexy and some people are just not organized enough to remember to take a pill everyday. I get it. However, I see sex as a recreational activity (for the most part) and I don’t feel I need to support people’s recreational habits and the consequences of them in addition to their meal plans, shelter, vital healthcare and much, much more. That should be my option, not a requirement, at the very least. Also, it’s my opinion that endorsing a no-consequences-for-your-actions type of sexual activity is not healthy, helpful, or contributing to a message of bearing children = the joyful event you’d like for them to have.
Personal note re insurance coverage/assistance: I and most of my friends used to be the same age and earn the same income level (or less!) as the majority of women who have aborted. Our excuse for an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy would never have been lack of contraception availability or affordability. It’s not like these things are made of gold. It’s either a priority or it’s not, but that’s a much larger discussion on health ins coverage.
btw, I agree that more should be done to educate and assist sex newcomers in understanding human anatomy, reproduction and ALL available forms of birth control. Then, churches and parents can further guide them regarding what is acceptable based on particular religious or moral beliefs.
It’s not like these things are made of gold.
It’s not like they are 100% effective, either.
I’m curious to know how Jen found out the median income of “women who have aborted,” as that’s a rather large group.
I agree that pregnancy should be a joyful event and not a punishment. Unfortunately, I can’t wave a wand to make women embrace the awesome responsibilities that come along with having unprotected sex and getting pregnant.
So how is banning abortion going to make someone more responsible? If she is, as you assume, so irresponsible, she will probably not take care of herself during her pregnancy. Or she might, and have the child, and be an awful parent (or not). Again, pregnancy as punishment isn’t effective. I love kids too much to use them as a weapon.
I realize that there are a myriad of reasons why people don’t use contraception or abstain from sex. In addition to some of the above reasons, condoms and patches just aren’t that sexy and some people are just not organized enough to remember to take a pill everyday. I get it.
Well, the patch and the pill can also cause some adverse reactions in some people. Some people are allergic to latex and certain forms of spermicide. And some people do get careless. But I hardly see that as a legitimate reason for imposing my indignation-fueled “solutions” upon them.
However, I see sex as a recreational activity (for the most part) and I don’t feel I need to support people’s recreational habits and the consequences of them in addition to their meal plans, shelter, vital healthcare and much, much more.
How are you supporting their recreational sex habits? What, are you going to bitch and moan when someone does IVF to get pregnant and your insurance premiums go up? You subsidize all kinds of stuff–you make up the difference if your town gives a large company or big box store a tax break to entice them to relocate there. (One company in my town dumped all kinds of toxic crap into the ground and contaminated the well water–not only did they get a tax break to come here and benefit from town services, but we picked up the tab to repair the damage–and cope with the plummeting real estate values–after they left.) You make up for the difference when the uber-wealthy get out of paying a dime in taxes, including for services (police, fire, roads, defense, etc.) that they use. Your complaint sounds more like a beef with welfare recipients. So you’d propose that Medicaid or other health plans not cover contraception and that people “just say no” (which they never do, BTW, see my previous post as to why)? And if they don’t, we don’t support them getting abortions (because that would award irresponsibility!) and we force them to be pregnant against their will? And what happens if the pregnancy is complicated? Who pays for the treatment? Who pays for the prenatal care? Either this irresponsible woman deserving punishment pays for it (since not all women who get abortions are the benefits of your largesse) or she relies on Medicaid. Or do you propose that we simply not pay for pre-natal care either? Then she could give birth to a very sick or disabled child, or have a stillbirth. Of course, then we could throw her in jail for being irresponsible for not getting the pre-natal care she needed. . .oh, wait, that’s happened.
How is this hyper-focus constructive? Even if this hypothetical welfare woman’s pregnancy went well (and she somehow managed to get good prenatal care by collecting bottles and cans or something), we’d have to pay for the food and shelter for their kid–or if we refused to, then we’d have to pay for feeding and housing some of these the kids–now grown into adults–in jail (since crappy, poverty-stricken childhoods don’t usually make for functional and productive adults). Either way, we’re going to pay.
That should be my option, not a requirement, at the very least.
Okay, so what is your position about funding schools? Roads you don’t use or that you deem unnecessary? Social security for our elders (many of whom may have been fiscally irresponsible during their youth and not saved)? Tax breaks for the super rich and large corporations–who benefit from the services we pay for through our taxes? Is it okay to subsidize them?
Also, it’s my opinion that endorsing a no-consequences-for-your-actions type of sexual activity is not healthy, helpful, or contributing to a message of bearing children = the joyful event you’d like for them to have.
So forcing people (that you deem irresponsible) to have children is a solution? How, exactly, is this helpful?
Personal note re insurance coverage/assistance: I and most of my friends used to be the same age and earn the same income level (or less!) as the majority of women who have aborted. Our excuse for an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy would never have been lack of contraception availability or affordability. It’s not like these things are made of gold.
Do you have any idea how much the Pill costs if your insurance doesn’t cover it?
It’s either a priority or it’s not, but that’s a much larger discussion on health ins coverage.
That’s odd. Viagra’s a priority. If we are going to pay for men to be able to have recreational sex, we should also make contraception affordable.
btw, I agree that more should be done to educate and assist sex newcomers in understanding human anatomy, reproduction and ALL available forms of birth control. Then, churches and parents can further guide them regarding what is acceptable based on particular religious or moral beliefs.
Well, we agree on one point, at least.
If people want 100% guarantees, they can abstain. If natural family planning methods are 97%+ effective when followed consistently and correctly, I’m pretty sure the flukes in the more envasive methods do not account for most of these surprises.
See same survey (AGI) for economic information. Again, not the survey I know by heart, but still shows 33% to be between 20-24 yrs old (the majority) and 56% to be in their 20s (over half). It indicates that 57% of the women made less than $28,3K for a family of 3, which I’ll say equals $9433/person. (My statement was based on $10-12K, but most of us made half that.)
Women have more power than they realize in the pressure department. If you think a baby will stand in the way of your future or you’d rather spend your money on things other than contraception, find someone who doesn’t mind paying for and using contraception and who is worth that 1-3% risk of pregnancy.
perhaps a bit off-topic at this point in the conversation but several comments back it was asked “Do you not care about forced abortions in China?”
i’d be interested in reading more about these forced abortions in China… but haven’t had much luck in finding anything yet. other than all the christian/pro-life/right wing websites i find when i google the subject… any suggestions?
Jen, can you answer my question that I asked you before?
Namely, how is using pregnancy as a punishment for (according to you) irresponsible women going to help the situation?
Using pregnancy as a punishment helps the situation by making us more responsible people to feel that we are doing something. It’s like when your 2 year old spills the glass of milk for the 17th time this week and you slap them. It helps to relieve the anger.
(Yes, that was sarcasm)
Sheelzebub, yes, I believe any person, male or female, who has sex without being willing to take responsibility for a pregnancy (if/when it occurs is irresponsible.
The definition and extent of “the situation” differ depending on who you ask. Since you are asking me, carrying a pregnancy to term (some people’s idea of punishment) helps the resulting new life maintain a basic right to life, liberty, etc. That is what I see as the situation. But I am equally concerned for the mother’s same basic right to life and am very sorry that she is faced with a pregnancy that she for whatever reason wasn’t expecting or wanting. There’s no easy solution for this and I’m willing to help where I can. The mother may feel inconvenienced, embarrassed, and a range of other emotions. That is not the unborn’s fault and he/she shouldn’t be obliterated b/c of it.
How do you make *sure* that the man you’re with is willing to take that 3% chance? I mean, is it enough that he says so? An oath in blood? His balls in a vise grip?
I think if we’re going to start using children as punishment for slutty slut slut behavior, than we need to quit giving them actual, human names like Bobby and Cindy. Start calling them Drunken One Night Stand and Broken Condom so they can better serve as the reminders of irresponsibility that they are to their mothers. I think we should also institute a scarlet letter plan, where if you have the kind of sex deemed unacceptable by say, Jen, and you get caught (aka pregnant) you have to wear scarlet lettering on your clothes saying exactly what you did. It wouldn’t do for the women whose children are punishment for mistakes to be mixed up with women who planned their pregnancies.
And if you grow up in a poor, moralistic, small town like I did where getting affordable birth control meant going to the one clinic where your mom’s friend worked the desk and becoming beauty parlor gossip the very next day, tough titty. Time to start pumping out the shame babies, I guess.
But having an abortion is taking responsibility for a pregnancy. It might not be the kind of responsibility you approve, but it is addressing the “problem” nonetheless.
Amanda, your conclusion that mostly men oppose abortion because they don’t want women to have sex without consequences is a little hard to fathom. Do you really believe the majority of men want to see more welfare babies for the taxpayers to finance? Do they really want to see more men saddled for years with large child support payments? All just to control women? Come on! Of course I’ve known anti-abortion men–in my church, where the majority of women were also anti-abortion as well. Outside of the church, I don’t think I’ve ever met a man who opposed abortion–women having sex without consequences sounds like a great idea to them, since it means they get to have sex without consequences, too. My point is that, in my experience and in all honesty, men just don’t seem to be interested in “controlling women’s behavior.” Men who oppose abortion, just like women who oppose it, tend to oppose it out of concern for unborn children they see as helpless–whatever one may think of the correctness of that view. The rest of the guys love abortion–it gets them off the hook in a pinch, too. If there is really a vast male conspiracy to control women via babies, in my almost 40 years I haven’t seen any evidence of it.
Actually, since unlike you I gave a specific link for my statistic – and that source is, in fact, a study published on one of the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s websites – I think I’ll stick to my 58% number (strictly speaking 57.5% – I rounded it off).
I’m afraid I haven’t done a guide for how to do italics, bold, blockquote and links in comments – but it’s just normal html code. Maybe this page – a step-by-step guide to doing links I wrote for another blogger – will be helpful to you.
* * *
Anne, I disagree with Amanda on one thing: it’s not mostly men that oppose abortion. Most polls show that about the same number of men and women oppose and support abortion.
On the other hand, she never claimed that there was a “male conspiracy” going on, and for you to sum up her views that way shows that you either didn’t give her a fair reading, or you’re making up straw men she never said.
I’m trying to avoid the word “patriarchy” but it needs to be said. No, I don’t think individual men conspire. But I do think our society is structured in such a way to keep women in small roles that put men in authority over them. The hilarious thing is that everyone readily accepts that this was the case in the past–that contraception law, marriage law, voting law, property law, etc. all were crafted in such a way that women were powerless and men owned the public arena and also wielded control over the private.
But a few women tossed their bras in a trash can and that’s all over now and if laws banning abortion and contraception affect women disproportionately, it’s just a coincidence, right?
Very well put, Amanda. I’m definitely gonna swipe that from you, if I may. :-)
Sure, no prob. BTW, I know that equal numbers of men and women are pro-lifers but the men are more visible. Might be my prejudice, but it might be because of the sexism inherent to the movement.
My point is that, in my experience and in all honesty, men just don’t seem to be interested in “controlling women’s behavior.” Men who oppose abortion, just like women who oppose it, tend to oppose it out of concern for unborn children they see as helpless–whatever one may think of the correctness of that view.
And yet… the majority of the social policies in this country, such as they are, revolve around male priorities and are set up by men. American society as a whole is remarkably hostile to the well-being of children, I’d say. I’m not even anyone’s mother, nor do I aspire to be. However, you don’t have to want children or even like them a ton to see just how antithetical the abuse, neglect, or just plain old capitalist exploitation of children is to the social health of the country.
If you ask me, Anne’s reading of the motivations of male pro-lifers is already remarkably generous. I’m cynical and distrustful of the average man enough to believe that many of them DO indeed relish the thought of “punishing” women for having sex at all, much less the wrong kind. My most generous reading would be as follows: Some pro-life men probably don’t have a trouble sympathizing with a small helpless fetus– the fetus represents an abstraction of the realities of childhood and parental responsibility to these men. When it ceases to be an abstraction to them, that is, after birth and into childhood and the teen years, it’s really not that lovable or even interesting to them anymore.
I can’t think of anything else that explains the hopelessly screwed-up fact that millions of Americans are ready to beatify every last fetus or potential fetus in the world while simultaneously cheering on policies that ignore/punish/humiliate/undermine mothers, babies, children, and teens. Not just in the United States, either.
However, I now would like to derail my own black mood by saying that I really wish that Amanda was MY kid, or mom, sister, copier repairperson– whatever.
[applause]
Anne, you’re assuming the sort of person who thinks male control of women is natural is also the sort of person who thinks these things through logically. “She plays, she pays. Wait, that might cause an increase in the number of children receiving welfare, which would cause an unconscionable strain on the state’s services budget…” I’m not seein’ it.
Jen:
The definition and extent of “the situation” differ depending on who you ask. Since you are asking me, carrying a pregnancy to term (some people’s idea of punishment) helps the resulting new life maintain a basic right to life, liberty, etc. That is what I see as the situation.
The right to life, if any, of the fetus, does not encompass the right to compel a woman to act as a physical life-support system for it. A born child who is dying of kidney failure also has a right to life. But that right does not encompass the right to compel another person to donate a kidney.
The mother may feel inconvenienced, embarrassed, and a range of other emotions. That is not the unborn’s fault and he/she shouldn’t be obliterated b/c of it.
The fact that the fetus bears no responsibility or fault for the unwanted nature of the pregnancy is irrelevant. The woman has the right to refuse to gestate it, regardless of its responsibility. The fact that her refusal to gestate the fetus results in its death may be a tragedy, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I always marvel at pro-lifers who refer to pregnancy as “inconvenience.” You get the impression none of them have ever been pregnant.
You get the impression none of them have ever been pregnant.
Or even met/seen a pregnant woman!
“Do you really believe the majority of men want to see more welfare babies for the taxpayers to finance? Do they really want to see more men saddled for years with large child support payments?”
Umm, no, Anne: the thing is, you see, what a lot of these men are ALSO working for is the reduction or even ending of welfare for single mothers and their children. They also are more than willing to let fathers off the hook for child support payments, as thousands, if not millions of women & children who’ve been abandoned by those fathers can attest to.
So, they get it both ways: they get to punish women for having “bad” sex without much worry that society at large or any specific men involved might have to share in the inconvenience.
OK Ampersand, that’s fair, I take back what I said about the male conspiracy. But Amanda, I still have to disagree about the male pro-lifers being more visible. I come from Texas just like you, and now live in heavily Catholic and conservative Missouri, so I’ve spent my whole life in pro-life strongholds and if it’s different elsewhere in the country I wouldn’t know. But in both places the most visible anti-abortioners are women. It is mostly women who picket Planned Parenthood, mostly women who head up and run the crisis pregnancy centers, mostly women who do the fundraisers that support those centers, mostly women who are single issue voters that vote for whoever is pro-life, and so on. The men tend to be passive players–even those who are pro-life seldom seem interested enough to get involved.
CrysT, who and where are the men who want to let men off the hook for child support? They’re certainly not in Washington or any other center of influence–child support collections are at an all time high. The people actually in power are trying to reduce welfare expenditures not so much by taking away support for women and children but by locating the dads and billing them for what the government has spent on the kids. Granted, they don’t get them all, but DNA testing has made it pretty easy. What’s scaring more and more men today (at least from the perspective of the legal world) is definitely not women having “uncontrolled sex” and escaping the consequences via abortion, but rather women having sex, not having abortions and coming after them for child support, thereby placing them in a parental and financial partnership for 18+ years with a person with whom they never wanted a lasting relationship. The powers-that-be support this because it is what the voters want–no one wants to support poor kids if they have dads who can do it instead. While men may have once thought “She plays, she pays,” (back when they could say “It ain’t mine” and walk away) DNA testing is changing that forever. Now if she plays and doesn’t abort, they both pay. She faces consequences, so does he. That’s why this continuing worry about “men who want to punish women for having sex” just seems a little outdated to me.
You can’t get blood from a stone, as we used to say at Legal Aid when dealing with men who didn’t pay child support–because they were (like the mothers) poor, or unemployed, or in some cases refused to work a steady ‘paycheck’ job so that it was hard to garnish their wages.
That’s true, mythago, the system doesn’t always work well when dealing with the very poor. But I think almost everyone (even men) agrees that when a child needs support, the best place to start is with someone who actually contributed to its creation–dad–and if it he doesn’t like it then too bad, better him than the taxpayers.
But to respond to your previous post, yes I do tend to assume that the vast majority of men are NOT particularly thrilled at the idea of millions of endlessly breeding women, because in my perhaps cynical viewpoint it is not any male desire to control women that makes this world go round but plain old-fashioned self-interest. Money, if you will. And endless breeding isn’t good for anybody’s pocketbook, by any stretch of the imagination. Of course there are a few insecure men who would like to repeal the 19th Amendment, ban birth control and send all the women home to have babies and mop floors. Likewise there are women who avidly search for sexism in every vicissitude of American life, and are quick to characterize most instances of female failure, wrongdoing or underachievement as symptoms of patriarchal oppression rather than as the results of personal choice and responsibility (which is more often the case). I am equally unimpressed by both extremes, because neither represents reality or common sense. And part of reality as I see it (from my own experience–some see it differently, I know) is that the average American male no longer particularly cares what a woman does in her bedroom as long as it does not affect his wallet, either indirectly through social taxing and spending, or directly through child support orders to which he realizes he is increasingly vulnerable. And if Don P, who is having an exchange with Joe M on another thread, is correct, our country and the entire world is growing ever more liberal with regard to gender issues and reproductive rights, so what is all the hysteria about? I could be wrong, but I myself predict that real Bible-believing churches with firm doctrines, where much pro-life and to a lesser extent anti-contraception feeling originates, will one day in the not-terribly-distant future be simply small groups that live their beliefs within society but have no great influence on government, much like in the early days of Christianity (but without the lions, hopefully :) ). So I doubt that abortion, and certainly birth control, are in any serious danger.
Thank you all for the exchange of ideas. I have enjoyed it.
Anne:
And if Don P, who is having an exchange with Joe M on another thread, is correct, our country and the entire world is growing ever more liberal with regard to gender issues and reproductive rights, so what is all the hysteria about?
There isn’t any reason for “hysteria,” but there does need to be continued political and social pressure to increase and secure reproductive rights and women’s rights around the world. These rights don’t appear out of a vacuum, they come about because of the work of organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the World Health Organization.
And yes, Planned Parenthood and NARAL exaggerate the threat to reproductive rights in America, but that’s just the reality of political lobbying. All political lobbying organizations exaggerate the threat from their opponents to their cause in order to galvanize their supporters into giving money and taking action. The National Right to Life Committee and the National Rifle Association and the American Taxpayers Union and other conservative lobbyists also exaggerate the power of their opponents. The biggest obstacle any lobbyist must overcome is simple apathy and complacency. You have to get people fired up if you’re going to persuade them to write you a check or attend a protest or write a letter to their congressman. That’s why political fundraising literature tends to be so exaggerated.
Does everyone agree with Don P’s statement that political fundraising literature tends to be exaggerated in order to galvinize supporters (slightly reworded)? I’m asking b/c I don’t get that impression from either side.
Also, as far as the reproductive rights and gender issues go, what are these goals that keep getting more liberal? Are you (as indivs/grps) trying to maintain the right to an abortion or are you additionally seeking government assistance for such procedures and facilities that promote abortion and other rights beyond abortion?
that political fundraising literature tends to be exaggerated in order to galvinize supporters
I think, often, when writing campaign literature, at least two types of things happen
1) Sometimes, those writing the literature focus on things they see as problems, omitting things that are ok. Example: maybe we lack health care in rural areas, but have plenty in cities. Someone concerned about the lack mentiones only the rural issue. When the writer puts together a whole list, it can be seen as an exaggeration.
2) Some groups do intentionally exaggerate. Theres’ a story claiming if the democrats are elected, they will ban bibles. Now, clearly Bibles aren’t going to be banned no matter who is elected. (Nor will be ban the Koran or even “Gone With the Wind. “)
The first item might be seen as exaggeration by people. The second one really is exaggeration.
MC:
Also, as far as the reproductive rights and gender issues go, what are these goals that keep getting more liberal? Are you (as indivs/grps) trying to maintain the right to an abortion or are you additionally seeking government assistance for such procedures and facilities that promote abortion and other rights beyond abortion?
I don’t think the goals keep getting more liberal. I think global attitudes and policies towards abortion are getting more liberal. And yes, I favor the inclusion of abortion services in government-funded or government-provided health care.
Lucia:
I think the exaggeration consists of far more than selective citation of facts. The fundraising material I receive from Planned Parenthood regularly contains warnings to the effect that reproductive rights are hanging by a thread and that urgent action is required. Fundraising literature tends to be full of words like “urgent” and “emergency.” And again, I’m not saying this is a liberal thing. It’s a feature of political lobbying in general. The NRA, for example, routinely asserts that even modest gun control measures are merely the first step towards the confiscation of all guns. Sometimes it goes too far even for its own supporters. An NRA fundraising letter from the early 90s that described federal BATF agents as “jack-booted government thugs” so angered George H.W. Bush that he resigned his lifetime membership in the organization.
“who and where are the men who want to let men off the hook for child support? They’re certainly not in Washington or any other center of influence”
I would like to point out that not everyone with Internet access lives in the United States or is a US citizen. I realise that I hadn’t made clear here that I am not, but it is a bit irritating when everyone assumes that “American” is the default in any online exchange.
Abortion rights is an issue that crosses a lot of borders. I understand that for an American, US laws are the ones that affect you the most, but the ideas that are being generated here resonate with those of us in different places.
“The people actually in power are trying to reduce welfare expenditures not so much by taking away support for women and children…”
That isn’t the news *we* get. And that’s not at all what I hear from the American women on the various forums I participate in. What I hear is that more and more women and children are living below the poverty line in the US (and many other countries, BTW) every day. And one contributing factor are the reductions in benefits that so many governments are making towards mothers.
“…but by locating the dads and billing them for what the government has spent on the kids.”
Well, please forgive me for being cynical about the effectiveness of such initiatives when they are taken by governments with such bad past records in similar matters. Are you sure they are having a signifcant positive effect, or are they just more PR exercises?
“What’s scaring more and more men today (at least from the perspective of the legal world) is definitely not women having “uncontrolled sex” and escaping the consequences via abortion, but rather women having sex, not having abortions and coming after them for child support, thereby placing them in a parental and financial partnership for 18+ years with a person with whom they never wanted a lasting relationship. The powers-that-be support this because it is what the voters want–no one wants to support poor kids if they have dads who can do it instead.”
Well, as mythago pointed out, a lot of those men aren’t able to pay anyway, so yet again I see such actions on the part of the government as just so much talk. Of course, they will be able to trot out a few “successful” cases to give the impression they’re having an effect, but I still wonder what the nationwide stats are saying. Also, what the US government decides to do isn’t really goint to help a young woman in Ireland who can’t get an abortion and has no money to get the to the UK.
“Now if she plays and doesn’t abort, they both pay. She faces consequences, so does he. That’s why this continuing worry about “men who want to punish women for having sex” just seems a little outdated to me.”
Not to me. You can put a law into place, but if the public at large still has a mentality that opposes it, you aren’t going to get it adhered to with any regularity. And I’m sure that if we dug behind all the rhetoric of “making men resposible”, we’d find that it really wasn’t working that efficiently. All you have to do is look at the success rates of rape prosecution for proof that just because something is inscribed in law, that doesn’t mean the institutions there to enforce the law will carry through effectively.
I’m convinced the control issue is still firmly in place with a lot of “pro-life” men (and, sadly, a lot of the women) simply because of the way they discuss the issue. Their choices of focus and blind spots make it clear. Of course, there are also those who just want to punish anyone who’s, as they see it, having a good time & expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill. There is a really disturbing tendency to equate nonprocreative sex with leisure activities, such as sports or hobbies, or with such activities as smoking and drinking. And that freaks me out, because I consider sex a personal FREEDOM. I know someone is going to come up with the argument that some people willingly choose celibacy, so we can do without sex if we want, blah, blah, and of course I don’t want to criticise any voluntary celibates here (more power to them), it seems outright sick to me that there are those who think we should consider intimate human contact a luxury, or in any way a leisure time activity. I guess this opens up a whole new can of worms (to do with the commodification of life in general and the labelling of all sorts of human behaviours as “lifestyle choices”), and maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Maybe if we got to the bottom of that, we’d see some of the differences between pro-choice and pro-life a bit more clearly.
Don P:I think the exaggeration consists of far more than selective citation of facts. The fundraising material I receive from Planned Parenthood regularly contains warnings to the effect that reproductive rights are hanging by a thread and that urgent action is required. Fundraising literature tends to be full of words like “urgent” and “emergency.”
I get similarly worded things from both Republican and Democratic parties. If the other party wins, the US will go to hell in a handbasket. I think the people writing the stuff don’t think they are exaggerating. Of course, they are…
And endless breeding isn’t good for anybody’s pocketbook, by any stretch of the imagination
Again, you’re assuming a certain logical leap there that I don’t agree everyone is making.
rather than as the results of personal choice and responsibility (which is more often the case)
I’m saddened that “personal choice” seems to be the discussion-stopping trump card in debates about sexism these days. “Why are we making these choices?” is no longer a permitted question–how dare one question whether those choices are made in a vacuum!
“You can put a law into place, but if the public at large still has a mentality that opposes it, you aren’t going to get it adhered to with any regularity.”
But that’s just it, Crys T–the public at large does NOT have a mentality that opposes it. Payment of child support and the reimbursement of welfare by the fathers of poor children is what the majority of voters (men and women alike) want. And young single men are becoming more aware all the time of the threat to their financial security and that of their future families which is inherent in unprotected sex, and it’s scaring them a lot more than abortion is. Abortion, after all, costs them virtually nothing. Once again, the wallet rules.
“Well, as mythago pointed out, a lot of those men aren’t able to pay anyway, so yet again I see such actions on the part of the government as just so much talk.”
Tell that to a man who suddenly gets a bill from the government for reimbursement of welfare paid on a child he may not even have known he had. Tell that to the California Supreme Court, which was recently asked by CSE to depublish its ruling declining to enforce a support order against a man whom they determined IN ABSENTIA to be the father of a child which was not in fact his. Their reason for this absurd request? Because other nonbiological dads might use it to overturn support orders and the agency would lose a vast amount of money. These things happen all the time, because now in order to apply for welfare benefits a woman MUST disclose the identity of the father of her child. That’s so welfare can locate him and hand him the tab. Yes, some very poor men can’t afford to pay it, but most fathers DO have jobs, and if there is a paycheck at all it’s easy to take a percentage out of it. If you’re not in the U.S. it’s easy to understand why you would be doubtful about child support enforcement over here–even many Americans who aren’t keeping up with this issue might agree with you because the concept of the deadbeat dad has been around so long and sparked so much outrage that it’s becoming an outdated cliche–it’s just not that easy to BE a deadbeat dad anymore because the government and the taxpayers want their money back.
Amazingly enough, there are even some feminists here who see the push for child support enforcement and welfare reimbursement from unwed dads as another example of “patriarchal oppression,” in that it deprives women of the choice to create single-parent households without the interference of men (who receive parental rights along with support obligations). I refer you to the Liz Library for discussions on this subject. Actually I have no problem with this in theory, as I’m not eager to grant parental rights to dads who made no commitment to mom (or support rights to moms who made no commitment to dad), but Liz failed to suggest a better way to finance these single-parent households which unfortunately are much more likely to fall into poverty and require government assistance than two-parent ones. The voters can’t seem to come up with a better way, either. That’s why men (and women) vote to NOT to let dad off the hook.
“All you have to do is look at the success rates of rape prosecution for proof that just because something is inscribed in law, that doesn’t mean the institutions there to enforce the law will carry through effectively.”
The difficulties with rape prosecution have to do with proof problems–it is often difficult to prove that sex was not consensual–not with any particular bias against women. An example of this in reverse is the matter of false allegations–a criminal offense of which women are most often accused but for which virtually none are ever convicted or even tried because it is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally made a knowingly false accusation. Proof problems always arise when we have to get inside someone else’s head to establish an element of an offense. Please see the discussion of the Bridget Marks case for more on this.
Oh well, I’ve digressed far enough. Bottom line: IMHO abortion is in no danger from the vast majority of American males–“controlling women” is too expensive for their taste. Thank you for all comments.
Anne, which feminists see the push for child-support enforcement as patriarchal oppression? (Since you put it in quotes, I assume you are quoting one of these feminists.)
Women can easily create single-parent households without men by using a sperm donor, in a state that recognizes the legal status of ‘sperm donor’.
because it is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally made a knowingly false accusation
Now you’re just making things up. It is “almost impossible” to prove perjury?!
“Payment of child support and the reimbursement of welfare by the fathers of poor children is what the majority of voters (men and women alike) want”
And what percentage of eligible voters is it that regularly turns out on election day? Less than half, isn’t it? In any case, the majority of eligible voters didn’t want you to put Bush in the White House in 2000, yet, if I’m not mistaken, there he is. In order to realise what the ordinary person on the streets wants, the institutions and legal system of a country have to be willing. And, as can be seen from many examples from the low rate of rape conviction to the nearly nonexistent convictions and punishments for white-collar criminals to Good Ol’ Dubya sitting there in Washington, that just doesn’t happen a whole hell of a lot.
“And young single men are becoming more aware all the time of the threat to their financial security and that of their future families which is inherent in unprotected sex,”
But how do you *know* this? Are you getting this from studies done? Where I live, the exact OPPOSITE is true, and young people in shocking numbers don’t seem to make use of contraception at all.
“These things happen all the time, because now in order to apply for welfare benefits a woman MUST disclose the identity of the father of her child.”
I’m sorry, but you’ve just given evidence for one of my points: that agencies are coming down hard on single mothers. What do you suppose happens if women don’t KNOW who the father is (or is abject misery a “proper” punishment for such slutty behaviour?), or are afraid to disclose his name for any number of reasons?
As for your other examples, you’re citing individual cases, which I acknowledged do exist, while what I’m interested in is the overall picture: are women and children on any large scale being better provided for than they have been in the past? All reports I’ve seen, especially those coming from the US, are quite clear about the fact that more women and children than ever are living below the poverty line.
“some very poor men can’t afford to pay it, but most fathers DO have jobs,”
And you know this how? And how do you know if those who do have jobs are even earning enough to contribute in any significant way to child support? Are you not aware that over the past 20 years or so, the numbers of people on “rubbish” contracts, where they have no real rights or security and earn too little to live on, have skyrocketed? Sure, you can always take a percentage of a person’s earnings, but a percentage of next-to-nothing doesn’t help much.
And I don’t for a moment believe that any of this is done in the interest of women and children. It’s done, as you yourself said, because taxpayers and the government have grown so pathologically antisocial they don’t want to support ANY initiatives that go towards the public good. So, give mothers a tiny piece of nothing, reduce or eliminate any government aid they may have been receiving, and to hell with them.
“The difficulties with rape prosecution have to do with proof problems–it is often difficult to prove that sex was not consensual–not with any particular bias against women.”
No, the problem of rape prosecution is institutional misogyny and the tactic of putting the victim on trial rather than the accused. That’s something even law enforcement agencies and those in the legal system admit, so why you’re trying to argue differently, I don’t know.
“An example of this in reverse is the matter of false allegations–a criminal offense of which women are most often accused but for which virtually none are ever convicted or even tried because it is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intentionally made a knowingly false accusation.”
Surely you’re aware that the FBI itself has estimated that at least 98% of all rape allegations are true? And that even then, there are a huge number of rapes that aren’t even reported each year? That’s the FBI, by the way, not some feminist group.
I don’t like to hurl accusations out, but after reading your latest post, I don’t quite understand why you’re in a discussion about FEMINIST pro-lifers, when it definitely sounds like you’ve got more of a “Men’s Rights” bent.
“Tell that to a man who suddenly gets a bill from the government for reimbursement of welfare paid on a child he may not even have known he had.”
Wait a minute! I thought we believed in “personal” responsibility. How is this my problem? He should have abstained or zipped up his pants or something.
“Anne, which feminists see the push for child-support enforcement as patriarchal oppression? (Since you put it in quotes, I assume you are quoting one of these feminists.)”
Mythago, like I said, I read this material in the Liz Library, which I access thru Trish Wilson’s website. I can not give you the exact article at the moment because I have been getting error messages every time I click on the link–but the title had something to do with “Male-bashing” or something along those lines. See if you can access it. I gather that Trish agrees with Liz, but you might want to ask her about that to be sure. But first I must clarify that it is not ALL child support enforcement that Liz views as anti-woman, only that which involves UNWED dads because along with the support obligation goes parental rights which interfere with the right of a single mom to set up a household on her own.
“It is “almost impossible” to prove perjury?!”
Perhaps not impossible, but often extremely difficult in certain circumstances. If perjury is so easily proven, why is Bridget Marks not being prosecuted in criminal court for it? Why do you almost never see women in criminal court for making false allegations of abuse against their children’s fathers, even when a family court so determines and transfers custody to dad? And why are there almost never consequences when a welfare mom falsely identifies her child’s father “under penalty of perjury” (that’s what the paperwork says)? It’s because the standard of proof in criminal court is very high. And Crys T, when I mentioned false allegations I had in mind false allegations of child abuse more than rape–and the dynamics there are different. Although, if there really were as much institutional misogyny as you believe, I’m sure they could find some way to get more falsely accusing moms for perjury–but they don’t.
“I’m sorry, but you’ve just given evidence for one of my points: that agencies are coming down hard on single mothers. What do you suppose happens if women don’t KNOW who the father is (or is abject misery a “proper” punishment for such slutty behaviour?), or are afraid to disclose his name for any number of reasons?”
If a woman doesn’t know who the father is, that’s what DNA testing is for. And if she is afraid of him for some reason, that’s what restraining orders are for. The same as with married or divorced couples. The purpose of the law is not to “come down hard on single mothers” but to make dads help pay for kids they helped create. Do we really want to send the bill for poor kids to Mr. and Mrs. Average Taxpayer who are working longer hours than ever to provide the best they can for their own kids, so that other kids’ natural biological dads can walk away scot-free???
“Wait a minute! I thought we believed in “personal” responsibility. How is this my problem? He should have abstained or zipped up his pants or something.”
I agree absolutely, Amanda! That is what I some day intend to drum into my own son’s brain if at all possible! But I only meant that statement to illustrate that men are NOT being let off the hook for child support, as Crys T suggested.
“And I don’t for a moment believe that any of this is done in the interest of women and children. It’s done, as you yourself said, because taxpayers and the government have grown so pathologically antisocial they don’t want to support ANY initiatives that go towards the public good. So, give mothers a tiny piece of nothing, reduce or eliminate any government aid they may have been receiving, and to hell with them.”
Well, I’m open to suggestions on how to finance single women and their children in a way that does not unfairly penalize the average taxpayer, who perhaps have become so hardened because we’ve been trying to find a solution to female and child poverty for thirty years and the only result we’ve seen is more demand for government assistance. It’s cliched but perhaps true that behaviors that are subsidized increase and the burden grows ever larger–that’s what’s frustrating the taxpayers. And that’s why abortion and birth control are in no danger that I can see from the majority–men and women alike.
“I don’t like to hurl accusations out, but after reading your latest post, I don’t quite understand why you’re in a discussion about FEMINIST pro-lifers, when it definitely sounds like you’ve got more of a “Men’s Rights” bent.”
I’m not into Men’s Rights–it’s an issue I don’t particularly care about–but I do favor fairness and objectivity, and my whole point in joining this discussion was to dispute the notion that seems to be prevalent here that all these supposed threats to abortion and birth control and reproductive rights are about a desire on the part of men to control women and force them to breed babies. I simply can’t buy into this because (a) I’ve had no experience of it whatsoever on a personal level; and (b) it so clearly goes against the self-interest of the average male, who understandably does not want to finance poor children if he doesn’t have to and is more than willing to hold men accountable for whatever share of the problem they helped create.
I suppose I’ve gone pretty far afield in exploring this issue, but that’s the crux of it.
That’s the FBI, by the way, not some feminist group.
oh sure, that’s what you’d like us to believe, wouldn’t you? we ALL know that the F stands for Feminist…. or is it Feminazi?
;)
Crys T, there’s one more thing I’d like to clarify before I wrap up. I agree that the present system of welfare reimbursement is not primarily about the interests of women and children, but about replacing funds that the government has spent on their support. The funds they collect from a dad do not go to the mom–they go to the government, unless they exceed what welfare has paid out. And if what they collect does not cover what they have spent, then the government takes the loss, not mom and the kids. So it’s the government which is really getting “a little piece of nothing.”
Mythago, did you find the article? Did you read Liz the same way I did about unwed dads, or did I miss it? I wish I could have quoted her exactly but I can’t get to it.
I’ve had no experience of it whatsoever on a personal level
That’s strange. I have no experience whatsoever with longing to have and raise a baby. Yet I have no trouble believing that when a woman says she wants to carry her fetus to term and raise a child, she really means it.
Well, I’m open to suggestions on how to finance single women and their children in a way that does not unfairly penalize the average taxpayer,
Well, for starters, we could have enough maturity to understand that long-term investment in the health, safety, and education of women and children is not actually a “penalization.”
who perhaps have become so hardened because we’ve been trying to find a solution to female and child poverty for thirty years
Ummm… this is a pretty vague assertion, Anne. Who’s this “we” whose been trying, and how have they been trying, and why is the cutoff point a mere 30 years ?
and the only result we’ve seen is more demand for government assistance.
Again, it’s an awfully vague assertion to make that more assistance has only created more demand. First you’d have to answer the questions I’ve stated above before I could even begin to understand what you mean.
It’s cliched but perhaps true that behaviors that are subsidized increase and the burden grows ever larger–that’s what’s frustrating the taxpayers.
Vague vague vaguitty vague… I have no clue what you’re talking about here.
And that’s why abortion and birth control are in no danger that I can see from the majority–men and women alike.
If you can’t see the danger, I’d have to say that you’re in powerful denial or the victim of extremely selective vision. Possibly both.
“If a woman doesn’t know who the father is, that’s what DNA testing is for.”
?????? If I’m not mistaken, you need to have at least a group of probably candidates in order to do the testing on. If you don’t know what his name is, where he lives, or in fact any way at all to get in touch with him, how on earth is a lab going to get any DNA samples to do a match on?
“Do we really want to send the bill for poor kids to Mr. and Mrs. Average Taxpayer who are working longer hours than ever to provide the best they can for their own kids, so that other kids’ natural biological dads can walk away scot-free???”
No one is saying men should be let off for anything. However, if there’s no money to pay for the kids’ upbringing, there’s no money. As someone said earlier, you can’t get blood from a stone. In those cases, which are more than you seem to be willing to acknowledge, then yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable for Poor Mr and *Ms* (har, har) Taxpayer to pay for childcare. That’s called The Public Good, something we all benefit from, and as such should be willing to support.
And anyhoo, regarding all the concern about the “burden on the economy” of these children: why exactly isn’t that an argument FOR abortion? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with that one: I think any children already born should get as much support (aka cold hard cash) as is needed for them to be raised healthy and happy, but one would think that a person who’s worldview was totally individualistic & uncaring would be more than happy to see underclass children being aborted.
“I’m open to suggestions on how to finance single women and their children in a way that does not unfairly penalize the average taxpayer”
Maybe the “average taxpayer” should realise that the lives of women and children have value, and that having the things that one needs to survive–adequate food, shelter, clothing, water, etc.–shoudln’t be seen as “luxuries” that only apply to nice people with “proper” jobs. And don’t even mention those “extras” like a safe environment and education! Maybe simply not being so pathologically self-centred is the answer? And I’m not saying that lightly. I see a really disturbing trend in the US for people to whinge about paying for ANYTHING that does directly benefit them individually. These people need to wake up and realise they live in a society, and that entails responsibilities towards others, not just their own individual rights.
“if there really were as much institutional misogyny as you believe”
It’s not what *I* believe, it’s what virtually every sociologist & social critic who has done an analysis has concluded; it’s what one academic study after another has concluded; it’s what analysis of the stats strongly suggests; AND, it’s what people working within both law enforcement and the legal system admit. Don’t make a widely-acknowledged social fact about my “belief”.
“men are NOT being let off the hook for child support, as Crys T suggested”
Again, how do you KNOW this? As I said earlier, ever report that comes out claims the opposite, so what special knowledge do you have that refutes this?
“It’s cliched but perhaps true that behaviors that are subsidized increase”
Examples? I can think of some, but because they’re mostly related to how the US govt. subsidises big business, who then in turn increase the extent to which they are fucking over the average person, I somehow doubt that’s what you meant.
“I’m not into Men’s Rights–it’s an issue I don’t particularly care about–but I do favor fairness and objectivity”
Ahhhh, but if that were true, you’d have more knowledge about the issues at hand: you are apparently even oblivious to information coming from mainstream news media and the FBI, which mainly, as I’ve said, back up feminists’ claims of institutional sexism and grossly unfair treatment of women.
“my whole point in joining this discussion was to dispute the notion that seems to be prevalent here that all these supposed threats to abortion and birth control and reproductive rights are about a desire on the part of men to control women and force them to breed babies”
You’ve got that somewhat wrong: it’s not about “forcing women to breed babies” (as if men wanted those babies), it’s about controlling women’s sexuality. Well, about controlling women full-stop. There is an entire body of literature that explores the history of uncontrolled women and men’s hate/fear of them, and, as a fair, objective type of woman, I’m sure you’re going to check it out. In other words, it’s about men seeing women doing something for themselves, for pleasure, and becoming childishly pissed-off about that and wanting them punished for it. And of COURSE they have no intention of financing this: living in abject misery is part of the punishment for being evil, slutty women.
And looking at a lot of the posts pro-lifers have made here, I’d say they’ve pretty much confirmed it.
“Well, for starters, we could have enough maturity to understand that long-term investment in the health, safety, and education of women and children is not actually a “penalization.””
All right, exactly what kind of entitlements would you like to give women and children for health, safety and education? Does that include increasing welfare? By how much? And what percentage of the national budget do you estimate would be necessary to pay for all of this? Could we fund it just by cutting back other areas of the budget? Which ones? Or would we need to increase taxes? If so, by what percentage? I’m not being sarcastic here–I really am open to suggestions. It’s a far cry from saying “We need to do more” to taking a hard look at what the possibilities actually are, how much they will cost, and what their long-term effects on our society and economy might be.
You could have fooled me. That seemed like heart-wrenching sympathy for those poor men presented with a child support bill.
I figure, since both welfare AND abortion are out of the question, we need to go back to the way they did it in the old days–infanticide. That’ll learn ’em.
Also, I agree. The only people entitled to anything in our society are not those doing the loserly work of caring for the next generation. The only ones deserving entitlements are defense contractors, who do the hard work in our society.
Hey, who needs to rearrange the budget? Just do like the Bush administration does and increase the federal deficit willy-nilly.
I’m only half joking. If the people who are in charge of balancing the budget refuse to do so, why should anyone else have to take it into consideration?
Look, if the US just stopped mounting expensive wars and such, you’d have BILLIONS more to spend on welfare!
Crys: Maybe we should do what we did in the 90’s. Increase the wars we fight, decrease the funding for them, but don’t provide those savings to the people — let’s give it to Enron!
Of course the concept was that Enron would use the money to create jobs for the poor not increase living expenses for the poor.
Actually, in a microeconomic sense, cash payments for “care-givers” (I say that because it is presumptive to say women, I would not want to offend anyone) and children who cannot afford to live above the poverty level, helps the local economy. Those payments usually go to the local grocer and other local retailers. Which boosts their profits. This is a much better system than giving the money to Enron and their ilk.
I think we could start by greatly multiplying the funding for programs like WIC and Head Start. That would be a good beginning. Not that it’ll happend under either Dim Bulb or Flip-Flop. [rolleyes]
I completely agree with increased funding for WIC and Head Start (especially HS).
One of the problems with the system for the 25 years prior to the “Contract on America” was the “forced absence” of fathers from the equation. Mother’s support would be decrease if the father supported her and their child. At least in the Black community that is what we blame for the destruction of the black family (it has been recently touted as a ploy by the 60’s democrats to get the black vote).
I think a better view is family support (regardless of the family makeup). If the family makes a certain amount of money the family qualifies for AFDC. The food stamp and Head Start programs work so well because they support working families and do not necessarily encourage people — not to take care of their family, but gives them support to better themselves and their families.
A good example of these programs are Veteran’s programs that have recently been expanded. Veteran’s get money for post-secondary education, special support for small businesses and help with purchasing a home. One of the best programs of the “Contract ON America” was the HUD program that put welfare-to-work mom’s into their own homes with grants and super favorable loan terms. My cousin, a life-time welfare reciepient, got a job, started getting child support payments and was able to buy a house based on this program. So if you want it to work it will work. The only problem is funding — that is sorely needed. President Bush, as much as I don’t like his politics, has done a pretty decent job in making that program a little better. He has also provided economic empowerment zones, of which many of my friends have taken advantage. One friend was hocking stolen stereos on the corner, now he owns a car stereo store in West Philly. We just need to get the word out there and Head Start needs to be better funded, so our “caregivers” and their children can empower themselves.
I don’t know who is going to do that while we fight about Vietnam.
Some good ideas there, jstevenson, I have to admit.
You’re right, Amanda, that probably did sound like sympathy for the guy getting the cs bill. And while I have no problem whatsoever with charging dads for the cs, the only aspect of the situation that ever appears a little unjust to me is when a guy suddenly gets a huge bill from welfare for arrearages built up over a number of years for a child he was never told about. Don’t know how to remedy that, though, short of mandatory DNA testing and establishment of paternity at birth which probably wouldn’t fly, so I guess the best way for a guy to not get stuck in a mess like that is consistent CONDOM usage.
Subjecting poor people to government survelliance and judgement of their sexual habits and family life in order to get government assistance is discrimination. Only the poor are subject to this kind of treatment in order to receive government benefits, which have been misnamed “entitlements” by conservatives, as if the poor are the titled class. The rich and the middle class get their government benefits without having their business nosed through.
As a supposedly morally superior middle class person, I was not required to go to marriage training for my FHA loan. My parents were not required to justify their divorce to anyone so that their financial burden in sending me to college was relieved by government grants. To get those same grants, I was not required to demonstrate that I did not have a man staying overnight with me ever. I work in a financial aid office at a grad school–unlike women on “workfare”, our students actually have federally subsidized childcare if they want it so that they can go to school.
Something to chew over for those who think that attaching “morality” strings to welfare is such a fantastic idea.
Certainly there should not be a requirement that the father be required to support the “family” in order to qualify for “working family” support. The problem with the old system was that the father could not provide support. What that did was discourage women from putting the person who contributed the sperm to task for his responsibility in the outcome of their foray.
I don’t think you should have to have the other DNA contributor in the home, but “actively” seeking support should be a requirement. Nonetheless, support for families with children should be income based, not moral based. That is the same standard for FHA and Pell Grants.
Amanda, re the examples you gave of discrimination: !!!! the US is in one fucked-up situation….and the sad part is the the UK seems gung-ho in following it down the path to Hell. I don’t receive any benefits, so I don’t know much about the system, but I do know the govt. here is making it harder and harder for people (and yeah, I’m pretty sure that translates as “poor people” to receive them.
“short of mandatory DNA testing and establishment of paternity”
Again, though, you can’t just take DNA from the child & mother for this, you need a sample from a probably father to compare them to. If there’s no way of getting one, how is this going to work?
“I guess the best way for a guy to not get stuck in a mess like that is consistent CONDOM usage”
Better and increased condom usage is Number One on my list of priorities, too, but we also have to recognise that there is such a thing as condom failure, and that people who have tried to be as careful as possible will wind up with an unwanted pregnancy. Also, we need to understand that, as things stand now, condoms are quite expensive, are unavailable to many, have a lot of stigma attached to them, and on and on. And until we remedy those problems, we’re going to have a lot of unwanted pregnancies to deal with.
“”actively” seeking support should be a requirement.”
Why? Why shouldn’t it be enough that the woman can’t financially cope on her own? I can think of a load of reasons she may not want to “actively seek” the father out: the guy could be an abusive psycho, he could be a deadbeat addict, he may associate with a dangerous crowd………..he may do dozens different things that make her fear for not only her own safety, but that of her child. There may be quite good reasons for keeping him out of the picture.
Good luck, Crys. The media and political establishment are most likely *dying* to create a scapegoat out of the poor. Because once you do that, all valuable political discussion comes to a screeching halt.
As a perfect example, witness how the discussion on how to reduce unwanted pregnancy turns into a debate about how wicked and sinful the poor really are. One side says, well we should fund birth control for the poor so that they too can plan their pregnancies. The other side, the ungrateful poor need to learn to abstain if they can’t afford their own birth control.
And then everything gets all stymied as everyone debates whether or not sex is a right or a purchasable commodity that should only be available to those who can afford it. In so many words. In the meantime, our government is cheerfully rolling back birth control rights for both poor and middle class women.
“Again, though, you can’t just take DNA from the child & mother for this, you need a sample from a probably father to compare them to. If there’s no way of getting one, how is this going to work?”
The same way it’s done when mom files for support (or welfare comes for reimbursement)–order dad to submit to paternity testing. Otherwise, default judgment. But like I said, I don’t think this would fly because of privacy issues.
“Why? Why shouldn’t it be enough that the woman can’t financially cope on her own? I can think of a load of reasons she may not want to “actively seek” the father out: the guy could be an abusive psycho, he could be a deadbeat addict, he may associate with a dangerous crowd………..he may do dozens different things that make her fear for not only her own safety, but that of her child. There may be quite good reasons for keeping him out of the picture.”
A divorced dad may be all of these same things too, and mom may personally want him out of the picture as well. But the law does not allow him to be thus exempted from his obligation to support his kids (because those kids could otherwise end up on the welfare rolls), nor does it allow mom to singlehandedly make the determination that he should have no relationship with his child–that is for a court to decide. And the same should be true for unmarried parents. It is just not right to ask the public to support kids who have biological parents to do it instead. To allow it to be otherwise is to open the door to a whole new set of abuses of the system.
I gotta’ hand it to you, Anne. That last paragraph of yours in particular is one of the soundest arguments in favor of legal, safe, affordable abortion that I’ve read in quite some time.
Child support is the right of the child not the custodial parent. The custodial parent is acting as guardian ad litem for financial matters for the child in most cases. It is a breach of fiduciary duty for the custodial parent to forgo child support, just because he or she does not want to deal with the other parent. There are means of collecting child support without the custodial parent ever having contact with the other parent. Likewise, visitation/custody issues are separate from child support requirements. Therefore, someone may have to pay child support and not be able to see their child. Certainly, actively seeking child support is the duty of the person who is the financial guardian of the child regardless of the personal issues that they may have to deal with. If that person does not want the “hassle” of taking care of the financial affairs of their child, they can have someone else appointed in their place.
“”men are NOT being let off the hook for child support, as Crys T suggested”
Again, how do you KNOW this? As I said earlier, ever report that comes out claims the opposite, so what special knowledge do you have that refutes this?”
How about the United States Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE), Child Support Report Vol. XXVI, No. 6, Jun 2004: “The Commissioner chose this forum to release some preliminary national statistical data from fiscal year 2003. She reported that child support collections reached an all time high of more than $21 billion-about a 5 percent increase over fiscal year 2002-most notable, she said, because it comes at a time when the child support caseload has declined. Some 72 percent of cases have orders, and more than 50 percent have a collection.” Even the FBI, to which you like to refer, has stated in a memorandum available on the Internet that the amount of child support collected nationally doubled between 1992 and 1999. I’d like to see these reports to the contrary that you mentioned. Which brings me back to my original question to you which you did not answer: Who are the men who want to let men off the hook for child support??? The average male voter? Hardly–they voted in the politicians who set up the child support enforcement system in the first place, with all its various sanctions for those who don’t pay up. Guys on the fringe? Perhaps some, but who worries about them anyway? Give me some details, here.
“There is an entire body of literature that explores the history of uncontrolled women and men’s hate/fear of them, and, as a fair, objective type of woman, I’m sure you’re going to check it out. In other words, it’s about men seeing women doing something for themselves, for pleasure, and becoming childishly pissed-off about that and wanting them punished for it. And of COURSE they have no intention of financing this: living in abject misery is part of the punishment for being evil, slutty women.”
I’ve read a good deal of such literature, thank you, but I’m not any more obligated to buy it all hook line and sinker than I am obligated to swallow men’s rights propaganda about how women are out there making a career of trapping men into pregnancy so they can collect child support, or about how the vast majority of sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody cases are fabricated by vindictive women, or about how the feminist-riddled government is conspiring to remove fathers from families so they can bring in a socialist state, or any other such nonsense. The best any of us can do is to evaluate what we read in the light of our own experiences and observations and judge whether it makes sense. And in all honesty, in my experience (which includes an education at a predominately male southern law school and a lifetime’s worth of friendly, romantic, professional and business relationships with men) I have not found men to be “childishly pissed-off” at independent women. I’ve found the vast majority of men to be just regular people like myself, working hard and trying to provide the best they can for their families and seeking to hurt (or control) no one. Certainly I’ve known none who want single mothers and their children to “live in abject misery” as any kind of “punishment”–especially since it was largely men who began the social welfare system in the first place to try to keep those same women and children from living in “abject misery” in the first place. Or do you think it came into being by magic?
“I gotta’ hand it to you, Anne. That last paragraph of yours in particular is one of the soundest arguments in favor of legal, safe, affordable abortion that I’ve read in quite some time.”
Exactly, and that was my original point. The majority of men, IMO, are not going to vote to ban abortion in order to “control women”–the alternative is too expensive for us all.
Thanks to all for your responses.
Exactly, and that was my original point. The majority of men, IMO, are not going to vote to ban abortion in order to “control women”–the alternative is too expensive for us all.
Ummm… right, Anne. Sure.
[beats head on desk some more]
Say !! I’ve got fifteen combs and fifteen pieces of tissue paper. Anyone wanna’ join my kazoo brigade in a rousing chorus of “Don’t Worry Be Happy” ??
The majority of men are don’t care enough to stop those who will push such a ban through. I hate to say that, since a good number of men I know would be up in arms, but that’s just reality.
Amanda, Alsis — come on, you can’t be that jaded to really believe today’s men have the ultimate goal to control women? Men are afraid of independant women? Barry once told me that it was a baseless cliche to say “blame the men” mantra. Alsis, your post is not doing a very good job of proving that is a baseless cliche.
I work in a “macho” organization and the most of the men are extremely humbled by the women in their lives. Every woman that I know (homemaker and high-powered attorney alike) who is associate with the men in our organization is strong, strong-willed and independant (many are Texans, also — he-he).
I am sure the type of controlling men are out there, but it is certainly not the norm. Sometimes I just chalk things up to a misunderstanding of the different analytical processes of the sexes. It is a stretch, IMHO, to assume those differences have some evil motive behind them.
I emphasize that I could care less if a woman wants to abort her child. But, I think just maybe those men/women who are pro-life actually give more of a damn about the innocent fetus who does not have the opportunity to choose life than the woman who decides to take that opportunity away. I think their belief may have something to do with caring for the helpless and nothing to do with control of the enabled.
BTW — Amanda you may have a point regarding the apathy of the majority of American Men. That is what is called the silent majority. The issue may not have sufficiently infringed upon their daily lives for it to affect them.
Jstevenson is absolutely right. The notion that pro-lifers — half of whom are women — are motivated by a desire to “control” other people is ridiculous. Their real motive is exactly what they say: To protect unborn life from being wantonly killed. (I know where the “control” motif comes from: The desire to demonize people you don’t know. But its hard to demonize the other side if you concede that they are sincere.)
I think both of you need to re-read Amanda’s last post again.
Also, Joe, I frankly don’t fucking care if your desire to force me to give birth is sincere. I’d still rather die than let you do it. Sincerely. :p
You’d rather die than go through with prenancy, even if you could put up a baby for adoption? Literally? Good grief.
That makes me think that maybe it isn’t so bad to allow abortion when the woman is so unstable that she threatens suicide at the mere thought of having a child. Not exactly a sign that she’s going to be a good parent.
Once again, someone deliberately misreads feminist argument.
That men as a whole cannot be counted on to actively work against their own privilege in NOT man-hating. It’s the facts.
While forced pregnancy is unpleasant for men and women, it reinforces male privilege. Men can therefore generally be expected to have mixed feelings about it, and more men than women can be expected to sit the whole thing out. People overrate the advantages men get from female choice. For one thing, in the days before legal abortion, there were still as many abortions but men had control over the access to them. The first feminist groups that fought for access to abortion DIDN’T actually fight the legal system so much as the distribution system–they trained other women how to perform them, thereby removing male control of the supply of them. They performed them for free, taking away male economic control.
If abortion were made illegal, the main thing that would happen is men would get more control over it. In a legal abortion system, women can go get one easily and therefore don’t really need to get male permission. In an illegal system, most women would have to enlist allies to secure an illegal abortion–the first person that a woman generally turns to is the man who got her pregnant, meaning that if he wishes, he can probably keep her from obtaining an abortion. In an economic system where women are still dependent, these are the facts.
Joe, your characterization of alsis as a hysterical female is sexist and nasty. She was referring to her willingness to fight those who oppose her right to freedom. She is no more hysterical than Patrick Henry.
I am sure the type of controlling men are out there, but it is certainly not the norm.
Not in your immediate purview, no.