NEWS: The Long Dick of the Law

I understand that an "objective" norm's assumptions are the carrier of inequality. I also understand that only women get pregnant. And I understand that the female law student feels uncomfortable talking about pregnancy and abortion in class because she expects to be accused of not "choosing" to ignore those topics.

I guess I got it. I feel sorry for the pain suffered by her and everyone else who gets accused of "pushing" an agenda.

I think it is interesting that you start the abortion argument after the pregnancy. Personally I don't mind if abortion is legal I don't think it's alive till it out of ya'. But the fact that pregnancy starts with sex that seems to be glazed over a lot of times. Will I know that woman are affected the most (some times solely) by pregnancy when/if it happens. This is wrong, men should be held accountable as will. If you didn't have sex you could not get pregnant and if you use birth control it's rather unlikely to happen but not unheard of. I think it a society thing now that the idea of abstinence beyond some religious idealist seems bizarre in at let the society that I have encountered. To me the quote "I have the right to choose when and if a fetus grows inside my body," is so true but the problem is when you choose, and you have to understand that to people that are against abortion equate choosing after the sex is the same whether you do it next week or when the kid is 4 and you're not really getting along with them. So really I don't think abortion is as much of a woman's rights issue as much as a big debate about when life starts.

Yeah, I didn't quite get that.

Although, presumably, if she were actually blind, the blindfold would be superfluous.

Well he wasn't blind to fashion!

RileyStClair, I assume you wrote this paper in the era of the personal computer. What are the odds of some selective copy&paste work? It might bring a rare constructive, educational quality to a Bitch thread.

It should also be pointed out that the idea of having kids as a choice because of the wide availability of birth control is a very general statement that doesn't take into account all socioeconomic backgrounds. Unfortunately, no matter how many programs are put into place, the uneducated and underpriveleged are not always able to obtain birth control. Consider that a recent Consumer Reports study tested various brands of condoms. The condoms that most significantly and consistently failed the tests were those given out by the government through programs specifically for the lowest socioeconomic classes. (Conspiracy theorists alert!) Therefore, getting pregnant isn't always a choice except when you consider that it is every person's choice to engage in sex in the first place. And we all know that abstinence works so well. Also take into account that those in the lowest socioeconomic class are also usually the least knowledgeable about sex and health issues as our national public school system does not have an effective program for teaching this information.

The point you are making in your article is that inherently, there can be no gender equality. But, it also seems that you are insisting that this can also only be to the benefit of men. Try also taking this argument and looking at it from a masculine approach. We are all agents of our own power regardless of gender. Power can be obtained, used, wielded in a number of different ways that may not always be immediately evident.

kinda like forcing someone onto a rollercoaster ride. You can come out with a fucked up neck/back, but thats the risk you take when you go on. Forcing someone to do something that could change their life forever (for the positive or negative), is wrong in all cases imo.

Is anybody else really disappointed by Dr. Bitch's lack of follow through with this article?

The point is, women shouldn't have to choose. We should be able to have kids and a career, just like the majority of men. We shouldn't be penalized in the workplace for being the one in the relationship that has to physically give birth.

(Also, the whole taking a year off to raise a child bit - a good number of workplaces give a year's maternity leave (in Canada, it's law); that would be the point of that post.)

It's not to say that children themselves are a hindrance, but that the act of having children, and taking time off from work to do so, can hinder (or slow the progress of, if you prefer) one's career - something that only the females in the workforce have to consider. That is what needs to change. In effect, we are penalized for being the half of the species with the ability to grow and give birth to a child.

Yes, it seems it needs clarification at least to me, and we're (I'm) not getting any.

It's not the length of the dick of the law that matters, it's the girth. FYI.

Just by saying "person in potential" shows that you did not think that life begins at conception. Lets say hypothetically we all accept that life begins at conception. It then is no longer the "rights of a person in potentia" but the rights of a person trump the rights of a woman in whose body that person is gestating. But what is the grater right, to live or, lets be a little extreme and say, to be tortured (childbirth) assuming that there is no reason to assume that ether mother or child will die as the result of the birth. I think if you mention to an objective observer that the death would be a child's (people just love kids) the would suggest that the tortured would be a lesser crime.
But even accepting that life begins at conception I think the world could do with a few less people.
On a bit of a side note around here we have "the morning after pill" its like a really early abortion and my mom being a pharmacist so she can dispense it, and from what she has been telling me it sounds like people are just using it instead of the pill and they often get the same people in nearly every week. I don't know how much birth control piles cost but it seems like some people think this is cheaper or simpler. I don't know where I was going with that but there it is anyway

I understand your point, but that was not what I was talking about.

My point was simply that I think that if you choose to have children, you should stay home and raise them. Of course I understand that this is not a viable option for everyone, but it IS a viable option for many many women who choose to let nannies and day-care providers raise their children, so they can have that huge house, gigantic flat screen tv/entertainment system, or whatever.

Children by and large do better in school and in everyday life when they have mothers who are able to--and choose to--stay at home and mother them.

Well, if you take time off from college it hinders the progress of getting your degree, right? So of course taking time off from work hinders progress up the ladder, that's just logical; it is not something that is DONE to a person just because of their gender. While it may be "uneven" I do not see how it is unfair. We can have babies, men cannot: is that fair/equal? It just IS.

Is it unfair because men cannot get pregnant? Because by that standard men could say that it is unfair that women CAN get pregnant and get that 1-year paid maternity leave.

All things in life are not equal. That alone does not make them wrong.

If women wish to work and climb the ladder (and fight the unfair pay battle!!), more power to them. But why then also choose to have a baby and "interrupt" that climb--and then blame the employer? It's just not logical. It's like taking a year off of college to travel and then blaming the Dean for not graduating "with your class."

If women do choose to--or have to--take a year off, okay, that's their right, but they should also realize that that year off WILL hinder things in the workplace.

Seems logical to me.

And thanks for not insulting my hideous typing!

Who said the man couldn't or shouldn't stay home? Who even mentioned men? The topic is WOMEN who feel they have been wronged if they take a year off to have a child and therefore lose time or points in the "ladder climb" to success.

Since human men cannot yet carry or give birth to babies, they cannot get "pregnancy leave" - so the subject is moot.

If you want to talk about stay-at-home dads, have at it. Write a book if you want to.

I would like to edit my above comment to say instead,
"Blah blah blah blah and more blah. Who even mentioned men?

Bah!"

Because really, what do words matter around here?