Miss Muffet A Feminist?

Embracing feminism doesn't mean that we must expect the same things from women and men.

It means that gender differences must not make us assume gender inferiorities.

I realized that last night. This morning, I remembered the following nursery rhyme:

Little Miss Muffet crouched on a tuffett,
Collecting her shell-shocked wits.
There dropped (from a glider) an H-bomb beside her--
Which frightened Miss Muffet to bits.

Turns out, that was written by Paul Dehn to protest nuclear war (duh). The fact that it came to mind while I was reading Freakonomics seemed appropriate, since the chapter titled "Where Have All The Criminals Gone?" makes the convincing case that they have, in fact, been aborted. I suggest you read the book for yourself. The book also added a capping quote to an issue I was thinking heavily about a bit ago: "What the link between abortion and crime does say is this: when the government gives a woman the opportunity to make her own decision about abortion, she generally does a good job of figuring out if she is in a position to raise the baby well."

But, in the words of Mark Twain, I'm getting off track. Of course we can't expect the same things from women and men. Women don't have as much testosterone. Men don't have as much bleeding from the uterus. And you know what? It's really not as simple as that.

And in the end, I think Miss Muffet would have accepted her fate calmly. She eats curds. You can't tell me that doesn't build character.

pro-choice, pro-life, ...pro-abortion?

I've come to the conclusion that, in fact, I am not pro-choice.

I am pro-abortion.

I just don't seem to care as much about the guilt over aborting a fetus one parent would've liked to raise, as I do about neither parent being hampered in what they want to do with their life--and their money.
Finding out which is more harmful to the individual is probably the part of this issue I need to focus any future research on.
I also want to know about the most oft-used justifications for the legality of abortion, because maybe I've got those wrong in my head.
Yesterday I was scaring myself with thoughts of child-bearing licenses.

Misandristing

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.

Boil blog for 20 days in skull of witch (Roald Dahl, anyone?)

Resolution #7: Be less verbose. (Aka post shorter blogs.)

Sorry about this recent trend of mine not to do so..

My last blog entry boils down to thinking men should be able to bow out of a fetus's life, and then not have to pay child support, as long as they make it clear that they would prefer an abortion while there's still time.

The entry before that boils down to Resolution #6: No sex this year.

It turns out, the past few "relationships" (and there I'm being kind to myself) I've been in weren't all that useful. I'm hereby renewing my effort to become friends with a potential sig-o before hooking up with said potential sig-o, because all too often I gradually realize they're actually sickoes. Not all that bad--just not all that good.

Also--here's to making positive decisions while drunk. For example, one such positive decision would be to NOT have another beer.

argument or axe fight

Reproductive rights: I've talked about them before and I'm about to get going again. Should men have some kind of abortion rights?

I think so. I think it's an important part of a couple's life together, and since they both had input on forming that embryo, they should both have input on ending that embryo.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a feminist. I think women are equal to men, and any laws or customs that create inequality are completely wrongheaded and need to be changed.

I'm also pro-choice. Very much so. I think abortion is an excellent idea for tons of people. I don't think having the baby and putting it up for adoption is a good idea. I think abortion is better. I don't think having the baby and raising it even when you don't want to is a good idea. I think abortion is better.

But I do think that men and women both have something to do with forming that fetus, and they should both have something to say about ending it. Before I go too far down this road, I think there are about four situations that are pretty likely to occur.

1. The man and the woman both want the baby. (Why would abortion even be brought up?)
2. The man wants the baby and the woman doesn't.
3. The man doesn't want the baby and the woman does.
4. Neither the man nor the woman want the baby. (Abort! Abort!)

So let's focus on situations two and three. Obviously there is some kind of scale here, not just a black-and-white, but right now I'm concerned about these drastic extremes.

Situation 2. The man wants the baby and the woman doesn't. [Please, don't get offended by my use of 'baby'--I mean, the woman eventually wants the baby that may develop out of the cells they're considering cancelling. The man wants nothing to do with that possible baby.]

I believe that the woman has the final choice in whether or not to develop and birth that baby. Should there be an option for the man to say, "Give me that, I'm keeping it, I'm raising it, get out of here"? Maybe...is that even possible, though? Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a huge violation of her rights, as far as I'm concerned. Evolution hasn't given us much choice on this issue, either. Has science provided a test-tube (or petri dish) to transfer that collection of cells into, so the woman can wash her hands and the man can feed it or whatever needs to be done, and then later raise the resulting child? I have no idea, but I doubt it. So all I'm asking in this situation is that the woman seriously consider the man's wishes. And the man seriously consider whether he's ready to raise that child alone.

Situation 3. The man doesn't want the baby, but the woman does. We're talking, before the sonogram shows something that a layperson would recognize. Or at least before whatever sign there is for us nowadays that says, "Sorry, abortion isn't an option any more." Does the man get to decide whether or not to have the baby? The woman wants it, and the man doesn't. So she keeps it, since she's in control of that decision. And then she says, this is your baby, so you better cough up the dough. Obviously, having a child is such a huge pain in the ass (and I don't mean just the birthing process, I mean everything after that for years and years) that women are pretty unlikely to give birth just to get some money. Sure, it may happen, but I'm not going to get into that because as I say, it's gotta be pretty uncommon.

The man doesn't want the baby. He said so, right from the beginning. She said, too bad buster, you're along for this ride. He said, but shouldn't I get a choice? She said, you bought the ticket when you got in my bed. He said, but then doesn't that mean women shouldn't be allowed to choose to have abortions either? She said, no, you misogynist asshole, just cough up the dough.

That's where this conversation seems to head. A willful ignoring of the man's position in the argument. I don't know where to go from here. I'm just glad I'm not pregnant, because I'd probably think like a woman. And I'm glad I don't have a pregnant girlfriend, because I'd probably think like me, and she'd probably attack me with an axe. And I'd probably forgive her without feeling like she even listened to me.

Consider checking out the LATimes article that got the ball rolling here. It seems to suggest that because I'm pro-men's-voice, I'm anti-abortion. I'm not. I just think men have a legal out from supporting a child they don't want. I'd add "and they shouldn't be denied a child they do want," but as I've mentioned, I don't think it's anything along the lines of right to force a woman to give birth, so until I learn more about test tube births, I'll have to scrap that.

The article also gives me this creeping feeling that I've got to hate on "men's rights" even if I'm pro-choice because anti-abortionists will twist my support to mean that I am against abortion.

I have a problem with the slippery slope. Reference the war on drugs. (That doesn't entirely support my point but it's my favorite thing I found while searching.)

Anyway...I'm not asking anyone not to get an abortion. I'm just trying to figure out some reason why men shouldn't have more of a say in laws that can bind them to children they asked not to have.