Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Actually, It's Pro-Family to Advocate Policies That Give Women Choices
Dear, dear Reader,
May we clear something up?
Just because I advocate for regulated child-care spaces, pay equity for women and reproductive freedom, does not mean I am anti-family. Nor does it mean I have a hate on for women who do not work outside of the home for pay, and who choose to be full-time moms.
Not every woman can choose.
I'm not talking about families who have a computer, flat screen TV and DVD player in every child's room. I'm talking no options, no way out.
The mother is single. Or her ex isn't meeting his support payments. Or her husband is disabled. Or he was abusive and she got out with her kids and her life. Or expenses are high, like when you have children in university or hockey leagues. Or the mortgage is crushing. Or any one of a million reasons that send women out the door and into the office, factory or store.
Marriages end. Husbands get laid off. Interest rates rise. Parents who were helping you out get old, sick or move to Florida. Stuff happens.
Sometimes a woman's husband "chooses" for her, as more than one reader has let me know. Some women, for cultural or controlling reasons, are told point-blank that their place is in the home.
One woman wrote to tell me that she despises the paraprofessional work she could do part-time on weekdays and she would much rather work in retail. But her husband forbids her from doing that because the evening and weekend hours would cut into her time with him.
Now some would argue that men have no choice either. It's their role to provide for the family.
Well yes, if you believe that, in the 21st century, biology is still destiny and it's men who must hunt the mastodon.
But why? As long as women are paid equitably, that is. Which they aren't. But that's another column.
Some women - Sarah Palin, you betcha - have babies and are back at work within days. Some women - wink, wink, Sarah Palin - put their careers ahead of their families.
They're lucky. They either can afford nannies, or have found decent daycare, or have stay-at-home husbands, all of whom can wipe a baby bum or runny nose more enthusiastically than their lawyer or banker wives can.
Again, it's a choice. These women know they'd go stir-crazy in the house, can make more than their husbands could, and so they go back to work, leaving somebody else to juggle the kids, cooking and cleaning. (Mind you, most women still do bear most of the responsibility for appointments and errands, taking care of ailing parents and sick kids, and many other burdens that tend to fall on female shoulders.) The thing is, most women do not have a choice. And so, they run around, sometimes from one job to another, just to provide their children with the basics: decent food, non brand-name clothing and, one hopes, safe shelter.
Look around this town. There are thousands and thousands of women in this position. One in four kids lives well below the poverty line, and often in places you wouldn't walk through in the daytime, let alone at night.
Stephen Harper's $100 a month for children under 6 doesn't cut it, even if it isn't taxed, which it is.
So when I advocate for regulated child-care spaces, or more choices for women, it's not because I am "anti-family" or want to "warehouse" children, as so many of my emailers maintain.
It's just the opposite.
You can't get any more pro-family than by wanting the best for children.
All our children.
- Posted in
62 Comments so far
Show AllMaybe if men were allowed more choices of what to wear, many more of them would sympathize with a woman's right to choose in the case of rape or incest. See, the gender divide is not just on "abortion". You can talk about wage gaps in the case of men getting paid more than women for the same job although women do get maternity benefits to somewhat close the gap some. And what about fashion? Women can wear just about anything men can wear but not vice versa. If a guy wears short shorts with his legs shaved and showing or even wearing tights, he's persecuted and called "gay". Just like the misuse of the words "conservative" and "liberal", these same intolerant men and women misuse the word "gay". If society would tear down its wall of intolerance, social issues such as these wouldn't keep killing us all.
P.S.: If more men were given the opportunity to wear what women wear, most of them who do wear them would eventually understand and realize a lot of trouble women go through to look attractive. Moreover, these otherwise indifferent men would sympathize with their female partners (girlfriend or wife) even on the issue of whether or not to terminate pregnancy.
Until we either infuse BASIC INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS into the educational curriculm or put forth BICS into plenty of free adult education offerings or whatever, these kinds of divisions will keep crippling men and women alike.
Actually, a hairless male body is, unfortunately, becoming the norm. And men are spending much more time on their personal appearance, grooming, and shopping for clothing and accessories. The metrosexuals have taken over. I mourn the loss of body hair. >:-)
But it won't be until men get pregnant that they will truly understand the gravity of pregnancy and the after effects, whether the child is born or the fetus is aborted. Even financial burden (child support) doesn't deter them from their pathological sexual conquests. This is why women NEED to be more responsible. It's not fair, but life is rarely fair. Instead of putting themselves in precarious vulnerable positions, women should take care to not get pregnant. And every woman who wishes to get pregnant must make peace with the notion of raising the child on her own, just in case it happens.
One of my nephews is nearly hairless except for his head. His wife gets turned on by his legs as does he getting turned on by hers when they look smooth. At times, the two of them will get into tickle wars for fun. :) Still, don't hairless bodies get irritating? I mean, the body has to get used to it. I remember when I shaved my face for the first time my face reacted funny at first. I don't see how my nephew can put up with it.
Interestingly, I noticed that guys who groom their bodies tend to act more softhearted and are less likely to be macho egotistical. In my rather "conservative" area, these men get called names such as "gay" when these intolerant assholes don't even know the meaning.
As for men getting pregnant, unless they were born female but had a sex change, I don't see any chance of that happening. As for women being irresponsible, this is part of what you're going to see as a result of men and women lacking the BASIC INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS that need to be an integral part of elementary education.
It's just my personal preference ... I like a man to look like a man. Hairless, slick, fake-baked, and overly groomed screams female. >:-) If I wanted a women I'd be a lesbian.
As Fred pointed out, women have the opportunity to dress as they please and the public doesn't raise a hell. Just because a man is hairless and groomed well doesn't mean he's a woman automatically. As Fred also pointed out in his reply to another poster, men wore skirts and tights in the medieval era. Are you going to call them women? Before tights were geared towards women, women did not have to shave their legs. The only reason they do it is somehow because they have to do so or else without sexy legs, they're somehow SOL. If a woman wants to dress in pant suits and a man wants to dress in skirts and boots in public, I say let's stop being so intolerant. And by the way, from what you said, you don't even appear to know what a lesbian is. A man dressing in what is typically clothing designed for women is not lesbian. You need to go back and read the dictionary.
I didn't say a man IS a woman if he's hairless and overly-groomed. I said that look "screams female" to me. I expressed it as my personal preference, did you see that part ? Look again.
Did you take offense because you're one of the hairless men or something ? >:-)
I know where the trend is coming from ... advertisements, magazines, TV shows, films. Men are now battered with images of the ideal male, just like women have been battered with images of the ideal female. But notice that the image is always high maintenance, requiring the purchase of massive amounts of specialized products. That's why hairless doesn't work, because hairless doesn't cost money. No, the ideal person, male or female, must be totally hair-free. Thus we have a ridiculously huge hair removal sub-economy. Likewise for other grooming.
What women have gone through for many decades now men are going through. It's not good.
As for the rest of your post, once again I have to question your reading skills. Did I comment about particular types of clothing ? No. Then why do you attribute such comments to me ?
Apparently, you're under the silly impression that only media advertizing got more men to be hairless. That's not necessarily true.
Then how did it become so popular ? You explain.
From the latest Guttmacher report:
[...] three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents [...]
[...] Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.
Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex. [...]
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
What do these stats tell us ? That many many many women are seeking abortions because of convenience. I keep saying this, women take greater care preventing mascara smudges and frizzy hair than they do preventing unwanted pregnancies.
If these careless women would exercise more care, we would have FAR fewer abortions and then the anti-abortion crowd wouldn't have as much to complain about.
If you could lift away all the war that humans have been engaged in, the one at the bottom is the war of man against women. This war will only win when enough men use their balls to desert and not to think.
Hoa binh
Sioux Rose
ANTONIA: Thank you for making that important case. I was mortified watching types like Mary Matalin make it seem that ALL women just blithely go off to work and the children suffer, as if there weren't key sociological imperatives that force as much! As if it wasn't more often than not Republican anti-worker policies that forced both parents to work to make ends meet. Family values, like "healthy forest initiative" or "No child left behind" are glib fabrications, nice-sounding soundbytes that take a real BITE out of the actual reality.
Frederick Johnson, if your most important observation is whether or not men can wear pantihose, ugh! Wear what you want in your own home, and if you have decent legs, just wear the damned shorts. In a world where poverty is reaching into more and more lives, food is getting harder and harder for too many to obtain, and the illusions of our bank accounts are cascading like castles in the sand, what a peeve to focus on!
"Frederick Johnson, if your most important observation is whether or not men can wear pantihose, ugh! Wear what you want in your own home, and if you have decent legs, just wear the damned shorts."
Excuse me but in the Middle Ages men used to wear skirts and tights. Besides, it was a strong example and my apologies that it sounded a bit unusual. I guess you just proved that women can be just as intolerant as men.
"In a world where poverty is reaching into more and more lives, food is getting harder and harder for too many to obtain, and the illusions of our bank accounts are cascading like castles in the sand, what a peeve to focus on!"
I understand and am aware of all that. However, if it weren't for society's intolerance and its addiction to macho egotistical lunacy, the economic wreck we're in wouldn't have happened.
Sioux Rose
Way to go atheist, attack women. That'll solve the problem!
Since 1492: I believe that the church understood the power of sex. If two people are lucky enough to genuinely like each other, share enough basic values, and have genuine chemistry, as is taught by the Eastern mystical rites of Tantra, they can go to VERY HIGH places together! By turning men on women, castigating the alleged Eve for offering the alleged apple to Adam (always curiously he was not blamed for TAKING the action, rather SHE for being the perpetual temptress) and coming up with the ROVIAN tactic (of its time), "original sin," a wedge was put into place that would bleed all down the centuries. The power of "two joined as one" is one the church would otherwise be unable to mute, so by casting a dark shadow over human sexuality, they turned people against their own most primary instinct (apart from hunger & modes for survival). Wilhelm Reich understood this, Freud was too stuck in his own mold, mistaking gender for biological determinism. Point is--if men and women ever learned to really LOVE one another, there probably never would be another war fought. LOVE is the thing missing, it is related to VENUS, the natural partner and Divine complement to Mars... but as I have related often enough in this column (sometimes seeing the metaphor move into mainstream journalists' vocabularies which is fine with me) for the present MARS rules, and he's done a heckuva job... prolifering arms across the globe as babies starve and nations are at a loss to repair infrastructure as their funds are wasted on that which guarantees destruction rather than Creativity/creation.
Mars alone cannot make life! The HOLY union is writ into our DNA as both genders contribute an EQUAL sum of genetic material so that the next generation can arise from what we both bring to the grand life-bearing equation.
I'm not criticizing all women, just the ones who are careless.
I'm female. I never wanted kids and took reasonable care to never get pregnant. It wasn't very difficult to stay pregnancy-free and therefore abortion-free.
There's one thing I don't understand about women who don't want to get pregnant. Did your husband accept the idea and if he didn't how did you manage to talk him into accepting the idea?
That wasn't an issue for me. I was actually single most of my adult life, and when I did marry my husband too did not want to have kids.
I wouldn't have married someone who wanted kids. I would not waver on this matter, I absolutely do not want them.
Just out of curiosity, what is it that you don't like about kids that you don't want them?
It's not kids I don't like, it's the responsibility. I don't want the responsibility.
"It's not kids I don't like, it's the responsibility. I don't want the responsibility."
You preach others about responsibility and yet you finally admit that you're no better. Thanks, hypocrite.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Sioux Rose
Caution: SNO WOLF, you try to disparage what I wrote above, and I'll think strongly about putting a mojo on you that will cause your sperm to FREEZE.
Sno Wolf has the one-up, unfortunately. He'll predict that your ovaries will sputter and fail, and it will happen. If there is a god, it hates women.
"He'll predict that your ovaries will sputter and fail, and it will happen. If there is a god, it hates women."
You really need some serious mental counseling.
You don't understand female reproductive biology, do you. >:-)
Not only does "atheist" have a mental problem, she also has severe reading problems of her own and yet accuses others of the same.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Not a bad idea for "atheist". :-)
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Excuse me but do we have to resort to this kind of inhumane treatment? Sure Snow Wolf is a conservative based on most of his posts but that doesn't mean we have to stoop this low. You are generally tolerant and respectful of others regardless of their views. Like atheist, you also need to some serious mental counseling.
Sioux Rose
ATHEIST honey, like most who have a dearth of spiritual understanding, you wreak in hatred. My comment to Snow-boy was gallows humor. Those who espouse a belief in NO God are mostly rebelling against the hypocrisy in evidence in their religion of family origin. Go sleep on a mountain for a few days and maybe the HOLY SPIRIT will touch you... just because your little ego-based intellect has no words for the marvels and majesty around you hardly means there is no GOD. It's just not a white guy on a throne. (Or white girl for that matter.)
Pot calls kettle black. News at 10.
I wrote an intelligent post chastising all of the careless women who have wrecked it for those women who have legitimate need of legal abortions, and you instantly launched a hateful attack against me. I struck a nerve, apparently. What, were you one of the careless ones ?
Your faux spirituality and delusions of grandeur (you believe yourself to be so important that an omnipotent daddy in the sky gives a f*ck about you) provide you no comfort. Rather than dole out inane advice to me, you should first address your own problems.
Btw, is there a reason why you aren't replying in-line with the threads ? You should do that instead of creating a brand new thread.
I don't see how you're any less hypocritical by preaching others on this forum that all victims are to blame for their own failures when in fact, most victims are not at fault at all. You should learn to accept constructive criticism and tolerate other people's point of views rather than play schadenfreude and stir up the blame game. How does your husband put up with people such as yourself who cry "misogyny" while at the same time screaming that "women are too careless to take care of themselves and are to blame for their failures" ? Please explain.
Did you actually read my comments or did you just spot a few words and then get inflamed ? Read my comments. I am not blaming ALL women for unwanted pregnancies. I am blaming the women who are careless.
A woman who has casual sex with a man she barely knows and who doesn't want to produce a child with this man should take care to avoid a pregnancy, don't you agree ? She can use birth control or just not have intercourse, don't you agree ? If she doesn't do either of these things, if she goes ahead and has intercourse without any concern for the outcome, she's being careless, don't you agree ?
I would extend it further ... A woman who doesn't want to produce a child should take care to avoid a pregnancy. Do you agree ?
Now look at the Guttmacher stats I provided below.
Sorry to burst your little hate-filled fantasy bubble, but my husband and I are in total agreement on this matter. That's one of a million reasons why we get along so well. We hold people responsible for their own actions IF THEY HAD CONTROL.
I'll go so far as to say any woman who is not being raped has control.
Btw, misogyny isn't a dysfunction of the victim, it's a dysfunction of the perpetrator. Do you understand ?
"I am not blaming ALL women for unwanted pregnancies. I am blaming the women who are careless."
But by your definition and your own admission, all women are "careless".
"A woman who has casual sex with a man she barely knows and who doesn't want to produce a child with this man should take care to avoid a pregnancy, don't you agree ? She can use birth control or just not have intercourse, don't you agree ? If she doesn't do either of these things, if she goes ahead and has intercourse without any concern for the outcome, she's being careless, don't you agree ?"
If all women were as "free" to tap around on this site and call everyone welfare queens the way you're doing because you just so happen to be employed, these articles would never be published. It's an imperfect world and not everyone is lucky. Get over it.
"Sorry to burst your little hate-filled fantasy bubble, but my husband and I are in total agreement on this matter. That's one of a million reasons why we get along so well."
That's your personal opinion. Not everyone thinks the way you do and different people are surrounded by different circumstances. If you and your hubby were in South Carolina or even Nebraska instead of suburban Chicago, I doubt you'd be in the same position that you are in today, let alone ramble the way you're doing.
"Btw, misogyny isn't a dysfunction of the victim, it's a dysfunction of the perpetrator."
Then Palin is a misogynist even by your own definition.
PEACE
Your reading and comprehension skills are downright ghastly. I'm choosing to not waste any more time responding to your absurd blather as you clearly have not taken the time to read or even attempt to understand my posts. I'm sorry that you are so lacking, I suggest going back to school. Take a logic course, too, while you're at it. It will do you some good.
Just because other people do not agree with your posts does not make them poor comprehenders. Judging by your own hate-filled posts, I would say that you are no better than Rush Limbaugh. Are you conservative or something?
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Atheist,
How about ALL men wear a fucking condom every time? Or how about we invent a pill that does the opposite than Viagra? It takes two for a pregnancy to occur, so how you dare to blame women?
"It takes two for a pregnancy to occur"
True that. I would like to know how atheist was able to prevent pregnancy what with her husband. If he didn't like the idea, I don't see how atheist would have gotten her way without a mountain to climb.
You can see my response below ... not wanting kids isn't a problem.
I'm not sure exactly what scenario you're thinking of. If a woman is married, then there are 4 possible situations if she becomes pregnant:
1) she wants the kid and he doesn't
2) he wants the kid and she doesn't
3) neither wants the kid
4) both want the kid
#1 and #2 are major problems with the relationship ! One person didn't want kids and yet the woman became pregnant. There's a disaster in the making. This should have been sorted out ahead of time.
#3 is most likely a matter of extreme carelessness. Someone, or both, didn't do their assigned birth control duty.
#4 doesn't apply, they'll have the kid.
Consider yourself lucky. However, you forgot to add these other scenarios.
5) both partners didn't want a kid but later one of them did.
6) both partners were eager to have kids but due to unexpected financial troubles, they are unable to afford children and thus choose not to.
Let me guess. You'll call them "careless", right?
Why are you dragging this out ?
In #5, if the woman gets pregnant, then they have a serious relationship problem and either one of them lied about using birth control or one of them sabotaged the other's birth control efforts.
In #6, if the woman gets pregnant, then apparently neither partner took care to avoid a pregnancy.
It's not that hard to avoid pregnancy. I've done it my entire life.
My point is: if someone doesn't want a kid, they should take care to not have one. But according to the Guttmacher stats (see below), a huge portion of abortions are due to carelessness. I honestly think that if the number of abortions were greatly reduced and limited to just cases of true birth control failure, rape, incest, etc, the anti-abortion faction wouldn't be working so hard to make abortions illegal. They understand, as I do, that abortions have become a type of birth control. They're abused. This is not good.
You did not even read NN's post. Nothing in life is fixed unlike what you claim.
As for blaming "abortions" on carelessness, the study forgot to include the fact that thanks to providing piss poor sex education, the chances of messing up are obviously greater. As for the anti-abortion forces, they have no problems ABORTING living civilians in other countries and the troops. Abortions are not abused and you know it. If you weren't working in suburban Chicago but were instead stuck in rural IL and more likely unemployed or stuck with far lower pay, you wouldn't be rambling such rightwing bullshit.
Btw, luck has nothing to do with it. I'm simply doing what I want in my life. I don't want kids, I'm not going to have them. Period. We choose partners for all sorts of reasons, I chose one who didn't want kids. He's also an atheist, bless his soul. >:-)
So you happened to be lucky to find your "perfect" match. Not all men and women are lucky. Sometimes, no matter how much one tries to find out about his/her partner, the truth can be very well hidden until after their marriage.
In the ideal world, everyone would be responsible. But our sick culture not only allows men to engage in predatory hit-and-run sexual encounters, it encourages it. Even the threat of financial ruin via child support does not slow these guys down. So women, the ones who bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, need to take control.
But women have their own special dysfunctions which cause them to behave stupidly, give up control, and become dependent ... sleeping with guys for approval, having sex but getting no pleasure from it, lying about using birth control, wanting a baby because they're feeling lonely or unloved, wanting a baby to get government support ...
There was a time when everyone was responsible. Have you ever heard of the VEDIC Era in India? You'll be amazed at the gender equality that existed before the VEDIC Era ended with women being degraded to the point of depending on men. Feminists need to be given history lessons about that ancient Era in India millenniums ago. And while at it, Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills for both men and women need to be taught. At least, our rough society would moderate for what it's worth.
Women need to stop allowing themselves to be treated like sh*t.
You can't keep blaming women for their failures. The macho-feminism type women such as Palin are the reason women are getting a bad name just like macho cowboy style guys such as Cheney giving men a bad name.
Are you saying that women shouldn't exhibit traditionally masculine behavior or personality characteristics ?
NN has a point. Being masculine doesn't mean being a fringe rightwing lunatic like Cheney. And thanks to Palin trying to be a macho egotistical rightwing lunatic to the point of making Cheney look "liberal" in pale comparison, more women are ditching Palin. It's one thing to be masculine, it's another to be a bully and a potential power abuser.
How is a woman saying "no" to a man's sexual advances or a women insisting on using birth control being a "bully" or "potential power abuser" ?
I used to be a mean spirited conservative until my wife nearly lost her life due to health and financial distress and none of it was her fault. If I had stayed a mean-spirited conservative like atheist, I would have lost my wife. I can't say I'm a liberal all the way but being a moderate sure beats being a conservative. Instead of blaming and exploiting each other the way people such as "atheist" would prefer, I say it's high time we all put aside our mean-spirited mentalities and actually helped one another out. Thanks to people just like "atheist" Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex are able to always laugh their ways to the bank at the expense of the rest of us.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Fred, thanks. I never knew that. I was always under the impression that men controlled women in India all the way up until the recent times. China and India still have a long ways to go but if the West could actually learn more about the Vedic Era and how women who rose to power and fame somehow fell flat, we good men and women could get to work on correcting this problem and not repeating history again. I am sick and tired of intolerant people blaming the victims for their status when in fact the system was rigged to crush them from the start.