Today I came across the word misandrist for the first time. I dictionary.com'd it, of course, as is my wont.
(Actually, I http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misandrist 'd it, because that's my real wont...I type in the whole web address. I don't know, I think it makes me feel like a hacker or something to go directly to the page I'm looking for.)
I came across the word for a person who hates men in the comments for Glenn Sack's "The Sexist Pencil Sharpener vs. The Sexist Knife Block." I agree with Mr. Sack on this one--both the pencil sharpener and the knife block are in pretty poor taste.
Not so sure I agree that the pencil sharpener is a representation of a consensual sexual act that women enjoy. I mean...splinters, to begin with, right?
I disagree completely with the idea of the female pen holder. Cara is right--it promotes rape, especially with what it's programmed to say when you use it as you're supposed to, by inserting your pen into the vagina.
Disgusting.
It's issues like this that reassure me that I'm a feminist, and apparently I need reassurance because I'm still struggling with the abortion issue. It's not that I want to ban abortion--far from it. From where I am in my life at this moment, I believe that if I were ever faced with having impregnated a woman, I would be strongly against getting an abortion, but that would be my choice. I believe there are many situations (probably a majority of situations, these days) in which abortion is the best option.
One of my friends recently put it to me in a new way, which helped to undermine the beliefs I've been espousing so far on the subject on men's rights in the abortion arena.
I partially quote him here, permission to be sought later:
"[...] Once your child is born, no amount of prenatal posturing absolves a mother or father of their responsibility to the child. [...]"
I guess I agree. (When I say I guess, I don't just mean I'm agreeing reluctantly--I mean I'm agreeing tentatively, because I'm not sure that I do agree.)
So where does that leave the guy, then? Nobody I know is arguing that abstinence is a reasonable demand, and yet when a guy and a gal shack up for the night, use a condom, and it results in a pregnancy anyway, the woman can either say it's too much pressure and go for an abortion, or she can decide to keep and raise the child. In the end, the woman makes the choice, forcing the man to play along.
Makes having sex seem like an extremely weighty decision, doesn't it? I wish I could support the idea that you shouldn't be having sex until you're in a committed relationship and wouldn't be too put out by a pregnancy. I don't support that idea because I try not to forestall the inevitable.
4 comments:
WEIRD! I posted something similar about this today.
Great minds, etc.
You know, it's interesting. The whole not having a choice when it comes to pregnancy thing is what women have had to deal with for most of history. It's always interesting when the tables are turned.
Of course, it's not the same, because the woman's body is the one that has to go through the stress and strain of pregnancy, and the facts are that more often than not, and as much as I dislike it, women end up as the primary caregiver of the child that would result from a pregnancy brought to term. But I do think that it's interesting that men get very upset when they lose a small amount of power they shouldn't have had in the first place, and yet rarely relate it to how women must feel about the whole thing. It's a very common theme in the anti-choice movement: "what about the man's choice?" "Well, I don't know, you weren't worried about the woman's choice until the past 30 years or so, and even now most of you don't seem too concerned."
To be clear, I'm not trying to call you anti-choice or misogynist. I merely think that these things are important to point out, because they go against the way that we're taught to see the world and most people have trouble realizing them, particularly those who have grown up with the benefit of male privilege (though women are extremely far from exempt). My point is that any helplessness a man must feel with regard to an unplanned pregnancy has to be only a fraction of what a woman would feel in a world where she is left without any options -- which is a reality still on most of the globe.
To your direct question, my response and best advice is to always discuss this subject when you're in a relationship, from a committed relationship to a sexual but recurrent relationship. "Hey, I hope this never happens, but what would we do in the case of a pregnancy?" It's possible that people will always change their minds when actually there, but it gives a good idea of people's frames of mind and whether or not that's a situation you want to potentially end up in. For one night stands, etc.? I'd say always keep the possibility in the back of your mind, ask if she's on the pill and reconsider if she's not, use a condom and lots of lube. And in the end, I'd say that it's about as close to justice as you're going to get; men have to worry about not being able to decide the course of a pregnancy, but women have to worry about actually being impregnated and actually being ultimately responsible for making the choice.
Also, a large majority of women do consult the man before making a decision.
PWNED!
Cara's right.
I got pretty worried when she started talking about how bad women have had it throughout history and into present day, because it sounded as though she was going to use that as a justification for some kind of unfairness that she was going to concede. Then she didn't--she was just reminding us all that abortion is something a woman has to go through, make the final choice about, and submit her body to, and it isn't even something she's always permitted to decide for herself.
Here's to that. I'm not in any way suggesting that women should be denied that ultimate choice. Check out my previous blog entries on the subject if you don't believe me. (As long as you'll believe me when you read it there--otherwise, don't bother searching it out.)
The reason I even made this 'misandtristing' post was because my friend had helped me to question the beliefs I was espousing, simply by calling it "pre-natal posturing."
Here's a recap of those beliefs, which I'm still struggling with:
If she's going to decide, against his expressly stated wishes, to birth the kid, then shouldn't she have to continue that loner streak when it comes to the consequences of birthing a child, i.e. do it without monetary assistance from him?
Post a Comment