Why Patriarchal Men Are Petrified of Birth Control — And Why It May Still Be a Battle 100 Years From Now.
By Sara Robinson Original Article Reprinted with Permission From Alternet. February 15, 2012 |
What’s happening in Congress this week, as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) bars any women from testifying at his so-called “religious freedom” hearings, is so familiar and expected that it hardly counts as news. The only thing surprising about it is the year: didn’t we all honestly think that by 2012, contraception would be a non-issue, and Congress wouldn’t make the mistake of leaving women out of conversations like this one?
Yes, we did. And the fact that we were wrong about that points to a deeper trend at work, one that needs a bit of long-term historical context put around it so we can really understand what’s going on. Let me explain.
When people look back on the 20th century from the vantage point of 500 years on, they will remember the 1900s for three big things.
One was the integrated circuit, and (more importantly) the Internet and the information revolution that it made possible. When our descendants look back, they’re likely to see this as an all-levels, all-sectors disruption on the scale of the printing press — but even more all-encompassing. (Google “the Singularity” for scenarios on just how dramatic this might be.)
The second was the moon landing, a first-time-ever milestone in human history that our galaxy-trotting grandkids five centuries on may well view about the same way we see Magellan’s first daring circumnavigation of the globe.
But the third one is the silent one, the one that I’ve never seen come up on anybody’s list of Innovations That Changed The World, but matters perhaps more deeply than any of the more obvious things that usually come to mind. And that’s the mass availability of nearly 100% effective contraception. Far from being a mere 500-year event, we may have to go back to the invention of the wheel or the discovery of fire to find something that’s so completely disruptive to the way humans have lived for the entire duration of our remembered history.
Until the condom, the diaphragm, the Pill, the IUD, and all the subsequent variants of hormonal fertility control came along, anatomy really was destiny — and all of the world’s societies were organized around that central fact. Women were born to bear children; they had no other life options. With a few rebellious or well-born exceptions (and a few outlier cultures that somehow found their way to a more equal footing), the vast majority of women who’ve ever lived on this planet were tied to home, dependent on men, and subject to all kinds of religious and cultural restrictions designed to guarantee that they bore the right kids to the right man at the right time — even if that meant effectively jailing them at home.
♦◊♦
Our biology reduced us to a kind of chattel, subject to strictures that owed more to property law than the more rights-based laws that applied to men. Becoming literate or mastering a trade or participating in public life wasn’t unheard-of; but unlike the men, the world’s women have always had to fit those extras in around their primary duty to their children and husband — and have usually paid a very stiff price if it was thought that those duties were being neglected.
Men, in return, thrived. The ego candy they feasted on by virtue of automatically outranking half the world’s population was only the start of it. They got full economic and social control over our bodies, our labor, our affections, and our futures. They got to make the rules, name the gods we would worship, and dictate the terms we would live under. In most cultures, they had the right to sex on demand within the marriage, and also to break their marriage vows with impunity — a luxury that would get women banished or killed. As long as pregnancy remained the defining fact of our lives, they got to run the whole show. The world was their party, and they had a fabulous time.
Thousands of generations of men and women have lived under some variant of this order — some variations more benevolent, some more brutal, but all similar enough in form and intention — in all times and places, going back to where our memory of time ends. Look at it this way, and you get a striking perspective on just how world-changing it was when, within the span of just a few short decades in the middle of the 20th century, all of that suddenly ended. For the first time in human history, new technologies made fertility a conscious choice for an ever-growing number of the planet’s females. And that, in turn, changed everything else.
With that one essential choice came the possibility, for the first time, to make a vast range of other choices for ourselves that were simply never within reach before. We could choose to delay childbearing and limit the number of children we raise; and that, in turn, freed up time and energy to explore the world beyond the home. We could refuse to marry or have babies at all, and pursue our other passions instead. Contraception was the single necessary key that opened the door to the whole new universe of activities that had always been zealously monopolized by the men — education, the trades, the arts, government, travel, spiritual and cultural leadership, and even (eventually) war making.
That one fact, that one technological shift, is now rocking the foundations of every culture on the planet — and will keep rocking it for a very long time to come. It is, over time, bringing a louder and prouder female voice into the running of the world’s affairs at every level, creating new conversations and new priorities in areas where the men long ago thought things were settled and understood. It’s bending our understanding of what sex is about, and when and with whom we can have it — a wrinkle that created new frontiers for gay folk as well. It may well prove to the be the one breakthrough most responsible for the survival of the human race, and the future viability of the planet.
But perhaps most critically for us right now: mass-produced, affordable, reliable contraception has shredded the ages-old social contracts between men and women, and is forcing us all (willing or not) into wholesale re-negotiations on a raft of new ones.
And, frankly, while some men have embraced this new order— perhaps seeing in it the potential to open up some interesting new choices for them, too — a global majority is increasingly confused, enraged, and terrified by it. They never wanted to be at this table in the first place, and they’re furious to even find themselves being forced to have this conversation at all.
♦◊♦
It was never meant to happen. It never should have happened. And they’re doing their damndest to put a stop to it all, right now, and make it go away.
It’s this rage that’s driving the Catholic bishops into a frenzied donnybrook fight against contraception — despite the very real possibility that this fight could, in the end, damage their church even more fatally than the molestation scandal did. As the keepers of a 2000-year-old enterprise — one of the oldest continuously-operating organizations on the planet, in fact — they take the very long view. And they understand, better than most of us, just how unprecedented this development is in the grand sweep of history, and the serious threat it poses to everything their church has stood for going back to antiquity. (Including, very much, the more recent doctrine of papal infallability.)
That same frantic panic over the loss of the ancient bargain also lies that the core of the worldwide rash of fundamentalist religions. Modern industrial economies have undermined the authority of men both in the public sphere and in the private realms; and since they’re limited in how far they can challenge it in the external world, they’ve turned women’s bodies into the symbolic battlefield on which their anxieties over this play out. Drill down to the very deepest center of any of these movements, and you’ll find men who are experiencing this change as a kind of personal annihilation, a loss of masculine identity so deep that they are literally interpreting it as the end of the world. (The first rule of understanding apocalyptic movements is this: If someone tells you the world is ending, believe them. Because for them, it probably is.)
They are, above everything else, desperate to get their women back under firm control. And in their minds, things will not be right again until they’re assured that the girls are locked up even more tightly, so they will never, ever get away like that again.
♦◊♦
If you’re a woman of childbearing age in the US, you’ve had access to effective contraception your entire fertile life; and odds are good that your mother and grandmother did, too. If you’re a heterosexual man of almost any age, odds are good that you also enjoy a lifetime of opportunities for sexual openness and variety that your grandfathers probably couldn’t have imagined — also thanks entirely to good contraception. From our individual personal perspectives, it feels like we’ve had this right, and this technology, forever. We take it so completely for granted that we simply cannot imagine that it could ever go away. It leads to a sweet complacency: birth control is something that’s always been there for us, and we’re rather stunned that anybody could possibly find it controversial enough to pick a fight over.
But if we’re wise, we’ll keep our eyes on the long game, because you can bet that those angry men are, too. The hard fact is this: We’re only 50 years into a revolution that may ultimately take two or three centuries to completely work its way through the world’s many cultures and religions. (To put this in perspective: it was 300 years from Gutenberg’s printing press to the scientific and intellectual re-alignments of the Enlightenment, and to the French and American revolutions that that liberating technology ultimately made possible. These things can take a loooong time to work all the way out.) Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will, in all likelihood, still be working out the details of these new gender agreements a century from now; and it may be a century after that before their grandkids can truly start taking any of this for granted.
That sounds daunting, though I don’t mean it to be. What I do want is for those of us, male and female, whose lives have been transformed for the better in this new post-Pill order to think in longer terms. Male privilege has been with us for — how long? Ten thousand years? A hundred thousand? Contraception, in the mere blink of an eye in historical terms, toppled the core rationale that justified that entire system. And now, every aspect of human society is frantically racing to catch up with that stunning fact. Everything will have to change in response to this — families, business, religion, politics, economics…everything.
We’re in this catch-up process for the long haul. In the meantime, we shouldn’t be surprised to be confronted by large groups of well-organized men (and their female flunkies, who are legion) marshaling their vast resources to get every last one of Pandora’s frolicking contraception-fueled demons back into the box. And we need to accept and prepare for the likelihood that much of the history of this century, when it’s finally written, will be the story of our children’s ongoing struggles against the organized powers that intend to seize back the means of our liberation, and turn back the clock to the way things used to be.
What we’ve learned these past few weeks is: the fight for contraception is not only not over — it hasn’t even really started yet.
This is an interesting view: http://classicalvalues.com/2012/02/dispatches-from-different-wars/
The writer thinks those upset by the RC and others getting upset by the resistance to the regulation actually believe what they’re saying. Nobody is stupid enough to think this is other than the churches’ resistance to paying for what they think is a sin. Nobody is that stupid.
The writer misses the larger point. We have an election coming up. We are the brokest nation in history. And the Blob has us talking about contraception.
This has to be the biggest strawman beating I have ever read in my life!
No young men are “patriarchal” any dregs of so called partriarchy are in old men and women who will soon be dead. People like this continue to escalate their private gender wars again men and boys who are on average much lower on the totem pole than them. They are indifferent to and seem to enjoy that unvoiced suffering.
They are in fact kicking their male slaves while they are down, spitting on them and calling them oppressors. They are so used to having men at their beck and call they are effectively invisible.
It makes me sick.
Very reliable male birth control will be near as big a revolution.
No more being held hostage by state power to facilitate the choices of another supposedly adult human being. Men will, with certainly, be able to decide when they are ready to be a father without being told to just “keep it in their pants” which no one would ever DARE tell a woman.
I think both genders should have access to great BC. And currently men can wear condoms and communicate with partners about mutually assured BC, sexual acts that don’t lead to pregnancy but are pleasurable. I’m not sure why more of that doesn’t happen.
Because there is not enough trust. 8)
Men on average trust women too much and women don’t trust men enough according to the actual factual risk. The average man is much more likely than the average woman to be a victim of violence, for instance. The “creepy” guy everyone avoids is hugely more likely to be just social inept instead of an axe murderer, or rapist, as is imagined.
In fact women tend to heavily over-estimate risk in just about all situations and for men it is the usually the opposite. It would be better if the information were more straight factual and less propaganda and that people were aware that life *is* risk and you can in fact miss much of the good stuff if you’re busy being afraid of the bad.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people that spread false information, and make their living off of the gender war, to the detriment of everyone else.
What does that have to do with condoms though? Men want control over whether they impregnate someone yes? They could trust a woman, or they could make sure to communicate, see her pills etc, or they could also use one of the oldest BC forms for men. Or the latter two together.
Less about trust and more about having control yes? Or am I missing something?
I don’t think you are missing anything.
Condoms are not “effective” birth control, considering the probabilities. Communication is great, but trust is more important, aside from all the other reasons, no man in this day and age is permitted to “walk away” from a pregnancy. Sterilization is effective but a ridiculously invasive option for a man (especially a young man) who actually wants to become a father at some point. If there is limited trust then control becomes all important, and not control over another (which ends up happening anyways) but control over your own future.
Women have full control over their fertility and thus over their destinies, men need the same, not some black robed thug telling them to man up.
If current trends continue (with not enough kids to replace those who die) we will have no input in the future as it will be a completely different culture that will be around at time. If anyone cares.
Do you mean it won’t look like today’s America in a few gens? It didn’t look like America today, 100 years ago either. Things will change, they just will. They always do.
As for condoms not being 100 effective. No, they aren’t. But they are available NOW. So too are bjs, manual, and actual conversation with a woman who may also not want to get pregnant.
Should there be other bc on the market for men of COURSE! Though it appears Santorum and his friends don’t want there to be!
Are things messed up? Surely they are, and in this one place biology has without our modern desires, conspired against us a bit. The female gets pregnant, the man feels like he has no control. Hell, the woman, even when she wants the kid often feels like she has no control. I totally see that it doesn’t seems fair if you want her to have the kid and she doesn’t or you DON”T want her to have the kid and she does. I get that. I’m sure she’ not having a field day with the decision either. I know a few women who got pregnant when they didn’t mean to. They were freaked the hell out no matter the decision.
More reason that Male BC should be in place, available, and over adequate (male pills AND condoms AND don’t sleep with her until you can trust she’s on the pill too) so that NO little mixture of the two of you is conceived.
I’d add in, as per usual, over adequate sex ed, more socialized programs to increase health care, insurance, job security and child care for parents as per nothern Europe where their abortion rates are far far lower. And if those safeguards were in place for the resulting baby? I’d have very little issue with the man rescinding his parental rights so he didn’t have to pay child support he didn’t ever mean to pay.
See her pills? Call me a cynic, but I dont think most women would react favorably to their man wanting to keep track of whether they took their pill
Probably not, but we aren’t talking about the ideal are we? And men probably wouldn’t look favorably on having to give proof they have RISG or a pill either.
Couples have to communicate together if they want pregnancy to be avoided. Have to.
Just seeing her pills doesn’t ensure that she takes them. I think you’re right in the sense that part of the issue of control is that I don’t have to trust. I think some of the concern is that he might not want children and she might, but says she doesn’t. Assuming the existence of male BC, she still has the option of abortion if he lies. He has no such option.
And I would say just cause he says he has the BC for men, doesn’t mean he really does unless he can prove it/that he has it/takes it. If I met a man and he was like..I”m on the pill and I didn’t know him? I’d still insist on condoms for one of us.
And no one enjoys getting an abortion. I’d much rather not get pregnant. Depending where in the US you live it can be hard to actually get that abortion. Some states have one clinic period with doctors that fly in. I think that’s Montana?
So…you’ve got a lot of weight on you to get off work, potentially travel, maybe deal with a waiting period. And if you are a teen, sometimes you might have to get parental permission.
So, it’s not like a cake walk, dance in the park kind of deal, abortion. And it’s expensive, both in the actual act ($300-$950 according PP in the first trimester), travel, time off work etc. And painful.
Technically you are right, but it’s not like returning a video or something
I think in the best case, he’s got the BC. She’s got the BC. And if they are strangers? Some barrier method is used to prevent STDs.
And I get the concern is that someone might lie. I’ve heard of the opposite cases, where husbands sabatoge BC pills or poke holes in condoms. People can be shits in both directions yes?
This is a bit off topic…but I’m glad you brought this up. So often here at GMP I’ve been hearing the fact that abortion is an option as if it were an easy option. Even if we ignore the emotional heartache involved, on a purely practical level it can be quite difficult. There are all sorts of artificial barriers created to prevent women from getting abortions, not to mention the social stigma associated with it.
I believe Montana is the state where there’s only one clinic in the entire state. And I believe it was there that they also recently passed a law adding time to the waiting period…you need to see the doctor, wait for a minimum of a week, then see him again (or something like that). And then there’s Virginia, with their introduction of forced transvaginal ultrasounds (which aren’t medically necessary).
So yes, abortion is an option for women and not for men. But it’s not like women have a quick and easy, painless, guilt-free way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, or something.
Right. Absolutely right.
@Heather
“This is a bit off topic”
I love tangents. It’s a great way to spark conversation and it’s great how GMP allows the, I think it helps that the community is also mature enough not to use it to derail.
There is a saying that a minor medical procedure is a procedure performed on someone else. If I understand correctly most feminists don’t support abortion as contraception, but approach It the way they approach MGC. Let’s eliminate the societal pressures for getting an abortion like providing affordable child care, but I suspect that even if every societal pressure was eliminated and there was no need to have an abortion, I suspect that they would still fight to keep the opinion and even if no male infant circumcisions were performed I suspect that they would still fight to keep it legal. People don’t like giving up their options or control.
The abortion and contraception opponents themselves are trying to exercise control by removing the option that they don’t have. There is less support for abortion among males not surprisingly. There isn’t a huge difference, but I’ve heard that the divide has grown especially among democratic voters. I support abortion rights barely based on bodily autonomy. I haven’t decided when or if the fetus is human and what limits to bodily autonomy there are when it interferes with the bodily autonomy of another.
I don’t believe in reproductive rights since a man raped by a woman can’t legally force her to abort or carry the child to term and therefore has no reproductive rights.
I personally approach abortion quite differently than MGC. I’m against MGC, personally. I recognize it stems from different cultural values and mores than FGC, but I still think it’s wrong. It’s causing physical harm.
For more on my opinions regarding culture and harm see: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/headscarves-and-men-holding-hands-coming-out-as-a-cultural-relativist/ (self-plug there. hehehe).
I am pro-choice because I am for choice…for me it is all about bodily autonomy. As for when the fetus becomes a human and has rights…hell I’ve no idea. Well not no idea…I know that my opinion is that in the first term, I don’t think a fetus should be given personhood. But anyway, I _wish_ that was what the debate was right now…trying to figure out the details.
But I also don’t think there will ever be a time where there are _no_ pressures to get an abortion. We could create the softest safety net for single mothers, and the most accommodating adoption system, and there’d still be pressure to get an abortion. It’s 9 months of a woman’s life where her entire world has to change…that’s not even getting into the cases of rape or potential danger to the mother by carrying the child.
With regards to male reproductive rights…particularly with regards to a woman who has raped a man…it’s freaking tough. I mean I get it…if the man is the victim he shouldn’t have to be victimized further by having no control over the potential kid that comes from it. And yet…and yet…he’s not the one who would end up carrying it.
Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, but I find it problematic to ever dictate to a woman that she must (or can’t) get an abortion. Because…like I said…for me it all boils down to bodily autonomy.
Oh and by “it’s freaking tough,” I mean it’s tough (difficult) to figure out out. I didn’t mean it’s tough, as in like too bad suck it up, or something.
@Heather
“Eh…I’d include modern ideas of beauty, female sexuality, and porn into that mix.”
You’ve probably looked at more feminist stuff than I so I’m not challenging the point. I’ve just never seen it. I’ve encountered discussions on feminist porn before, but I’ve never encountered feminists who say that porn is un-feminist. I’ve heard a debate over terms, where some feminists equate porn with that portion of erotica that “demeans” women with the rest being classified as erotic. Of course then porn is un-feminist by definition. I don’t see how faux rape of a man should be classified as different from the faux rape of a woman or BDSM with a female slave as different from BDSM with a male slave.
I guess we’ll always disagree on MGC, but I’ll keep trying to change your mind. I’m a bit less relative in my beliefs of right and wrong. I believe that incest is wrong even when practiced by the Branch Davidians. David Koresh was raping his daughters. I don’t care what they believed. I believe that it’s completely OK not to have an answer. A feminist once said that it sucks that men don’t have the same choices when it comes to abortion as women, but giving them control over women’s bodies would violate women’s bodily autonomy so even though it sucks, it’s the best we can do for now. We live in an imperfect world. That’s why I talk about common ground between feminists and MRAs. We’ll have fundamentally opposed positions, but hopefully will agree to support the mix that offers the fairest outcomes for everyone involved.
As far as reproductive rights are concerned, I just have issues calling something a right unless it can be universally applied otherwise it’s a privilege. I’m unsure if I mean that in the feminist sense of privilege. I’d need to consider that further. It doesn’t change my position on abortion because that’s based on bodily autonomy.
Hang on a moment…you don’t have a problem with MGC? I’m against it. When I say it stems from different cultural beliefs…well yeah it does. But it’s still removing part of a boy’s body without his consent and without a medical reason. I think it’s wrong. It’s harmful.
It’s interesting you bring up incest…because that’s another one where I try to take a more practical approach. If there is an issue of rape (regardless of whether it’s a man or a woman doing the raping), then it’s not okay. If there’s an issue of the woman involved getting pregnant and giving birth to a kid with all sorts of problems because of the incest…then that’s not alright. But except for those two instances…well…I don’t see why it shouldn’t be legal. It doesn’t harm anyone. I still find it really weird, and disgusting…but that’s my perspective.
“A feminist once said that it sucks that men don’t have the same choices when it comes to abortion as women, but giving them control over women’s bodies would violate women’s bodily autonomy so even though it sucks, it’s the best we can do for now. ”
Yeah that’s pretty much where I’m at too. It would be nice if somehow we could be like…if the woman doesn’t want the kid and the man does, she could just transfer the fetus over to the male to carry it or something. (I read too much sci-fi).
And as for using the term “rights,” yeah I can see what you’re saying. But privilege makes it seem like it’s so optional…and it’s such a charged word. We need a new term that means something that exists because of a right (bodily autonomy) but that isn’t in of itself a right because it doesn’t apply to everyone……..maybe pright? It’s a pright.
@Heather
“Hang on a moment…you don’t have a problem with MGC?”
Actually, I’m for banning MGC. Every feminist I’ve met except for two or three was personally against it, but I haven’t met any feminists yet who want to stop anyone else from doing it. If I remember correctly, someone on GMP said that she would defer to the father wishes. Changing your mind from personally against to supporting a ban on MGC is what I was trying to convince you of.
David Koresh did not actually wait until his daughters reached the age of consent as legally defined in his state, but that did not alter their belief that the sex was OK based on the religion that he founded. In these discussions, I don’t get hung up on what the laws are because that is not necessarily what they should be. At what point does a person actually develop agency? I’ve heard of instances where mothers have rejected FGC for their daughters only to have their daughters undergo it as adults because they can’t get married. At what level of coercion do we lose free will? You brought up abortion restrictions. At what point do the restrictions effectively prevent a woman from having a choice? In theory the child (could be 18) might have agency, but in practice, their dependence financially, emotionally, possibly spiritually or socially, etc. makes me question this in a practical sense.
It looks like it’s getting cramped. If you want to continue the conversation and I don’t mind. I rather enjoy it. We probably should consider starting a new thread (I think that’s the term). Let me know if you start one. I’ll look for it. Pright sounds good to me.
Yeah I’ll start a new comment thread. It is crowded
@ John Anderson
“I don’t believe in reproductive rights since a man raped by a woman can’t legally force her to abort or carry the child to term and therefore has no reproductive rights.”
When I read that I was confused- do you mean you don’t believe that full reproductive rights currently exist because there it is not equal between men and women as to the control over the development (or the halting of) a fetus? Or did you mean there shouldn’t be such thing as reproductive rights? Need a little clarification please!
Also, as far as no feminists standing up for MGC, I have a little anecdote- my mother is both a nurse and feminist, and she organized the nurses (this was the 80′s, so largely a female group) to tell the hospital that they refuse to assist in MGC based on moral objections. Not only did assisting MGC make many of the nurses feel absolutely sick, they knew that many of the doctors found it equally disturbing and would appreciate someone standing up on this issue. From the action, for a period of time during the 80′s the hospital did not perform MGC because of the strong objections of the staff members- if you wanted your boy snipped, you’d have to go to a neighboring hospital. Although this stance did not last because of demand, and possibly was only effective because it was done in a city with multiple hospitals, I still think this does show that you can speak out against practices you disagree with in your workplace and that feminists do stay true to the definition. Feminism means equality for all genders- I would expect people to appreciate and stand up for the rights of my little brothers as much as my daughter.
@ Jenna
Hi, when I said no reproductive rights, I meant as a standalone right. I define reproductive rights as the right to have a child or to not have a child. I looked at a very specific narrow incident where a woman would become impregnated by raping a man. Because he was raped, he had no choice in impregnating her and had no choice in whether to reproduce. Since he can’t compel her to abort, he has no control over his reproduction in such a case, he has no reproductive rights. Men also can’t compel women to carry a child to term so he has no reproductive rights. He can’t control his own reproduction so he has no intrinsic right to reproduce. Because this “right” extends to only women, it becomes more of a privilege. I don’t know if it’s similar to a driving privilege or to the privilege feminists attributed to men in “male privilege”. I agreed with Heather to call it a pright, a mixture of a right and a privilege.
I did hear of nurses, I think in San Francisco, who boycotted doing MGC. I didn’t read about it on a feminist site. It was on a site for moms and so didn’t put together that it was feminist activism. As I’ve said prior to today, I had only seen support for banning MGC from moms, MRAs and a very few dads. Men are taught to not look at themselves as victims and since many circumcised men were circumcised at birth they have nothing to compare things to. It’s hard to see you were victimized.
@Julie
“I think in the best case, he’s got the BC. She’s got the BC. And if they are strangers? Some barrier method is used to prevent STDs.”
I agree
Abortion is not an easy choice. I’m not sure that it should be. Feminists For Life doesn’t think that it’s a feminist position. Abortion is the only topic where I’ve ever heard feminists criticize other feminists as being un-feminist. Ultimately, it is a choice or option and though unpleasant, if it were me, I’d rather have the option than not.
I think it would be silly for a woman to completely trust a man when the potential consequences are this high. The availability of the pill gives women the option of not having to trust a man. Again, if it was me, I’d rather have the option than not. Men have the option of a vasectomy, condom, abstention, or discuss BC and trust their partner. I’d opt for B, the condom as the best option for men, but I wouldn’t want to ban vasectomies.
On another thread on another site, I mentioned how most feminists I’ve met are personally against MGC, but I’ve met none who’ve stated a support for banning it even though they oppose it on the basis on bodily autonomy. I could see if it was opposed because it was unnecessary, but it’s illogical to say a person should have the option to violate another person. Why do feminists fight so hard to control male bodies even when they would almost universally choose not to? It’s because people don’t like giving up control or options.
“Abortion is the only topic where I’ve ever heard feminists criticize other feminists as being un-feminist.”
Eh…I’d include modern ideas of beauty, female sexuality, and porn into that mix.
Julie —
I’ve already agreed with you, below, so please take this comment in that spirit. Condoms just don’t provide adequate control. Even in combination with a non-pharmaceutical like a diaphragm. If you disagree, fine, but my oldest child was conceived just that way. IUDs are effective, relatively safe and reversible. The pill and its offspring, implants and shots, are effective, relatively safe and reversible for women. We guys just don’t have that level of control. And, yeah, sometimes my lady wants it in her. She will communicate that very clearly to me. She doesn’t take kindly to my saying no.
RISUG, which has been in clinical trials in India for more than a decade is the functional male equivalent of an IUD. But Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher Institute, et al, cannot be bothered to fund or organize the funding of trials in the US. That has fallen on the shoulders of a lone woman.
Maybe the pharmaceutical companies will see fit to fund male pill / under-skin implants of progesterin-related compounds all the way to FDA approval. It always seems to be about “3 years away.” Unlike with the female pill or female implants, in the case of men testosterone cannot be delivered orally or by subcutaneous long-term release. But I think we men can be trusted to apply a daily schmear of T-gel on the skin to keep from falling into severe depression and lethargy.
In any case, as you have said elsewhere, this is about individual control, not trust.
Yes, which men don’t have. Because they have to trust, another flawed human being which may in fact *only* have her best interests in mind.
Effective male birth control makes trust irrelavant, but we are not there now.
This is true for both parties, actually. Condoms may not be 100 percent and I know that men seem to hate them, but they can wear them. They can also wait on penetrative intercourse (which is annoying too, I know) until adequate trust and BC is in place. And if he is on male BC she needs to have proof of that too. Both do. So that means trust, communication and control on both parties part.
I don’t disagree that condoms are less than ideal. Just that you have them currently available. Also they prevent many STDs.
Call me cynical? But my guess it’s less about feminism that RISIG hasn’t happened and more about cashflow. It’s a one time deal that lasts 10 years yeah? Where’s the money for big Pharma?
My pills are a monthly deal, condoms are a daily deal, sponges, etc are daily deals.$$$$$
How does a man “prove” to a woman he’s been RISIGd? How does a woman prove to a man she took that pill or had a ligation? (my mother got pregnant while on the pill at 41, was married to a 56 year old man and no they did NOT want kids).
This stuff is fallible for sure, both the techniques and the people using them. I see no reason to make the BC pill harder to get or more expensive, I see no reason NOT to get RISIG in place (other than money), and I see every reason for people to communication THOROUGHLY about sex.
I totally agree with Julie here. And though this is about birth control, I’d like to highlight what Julie mentioned. A barrier of some sort is needed to prevent STIs, whether that’s a condom, a diaphragm, a cap, etc. At the moment condoms are easily obtained, well known, and relatively easy to use. So I think that’s a big reason why they are pushed.
“Men will, with certainly, be able to decide when they are ready to be a father without being told to just “keep it in their pants” which no one would ever DARE tell a woman.”
Alright so I’m with Julie on the rest of your dialogue here, but I just had to comment on this. Women do get told to ‘keep it in their pants,’ except the phrase is ‘keep your legs shut.’ Our society puts shame on people who have sex, whether they are male, female, trans, straight, bi, etc.
Except women get told to “keep their legs shut.” by right wing religious conservatives. Men get told to keep it in their pants by supposedly progressive, sex-positive, pro-choice liberals.
Don’t believe me? Try bringing up the idea that a man should be able to walk away from parental obligations (same as a woman can) on a feminist blog. Watch how fast parroting of pro-life arguments starts.
The pro-life stuff is cause the kid is actually there. Needing parents (or resources which may not be available). The sex positive pro choice people I know want both men and women to take BC/talk/communicate so that that kid doesn’t wind up here in the middle of a freaking mess.
You don’t have to keep it in your pants at all! Have fun with it! Mutually communicated, STD protected, fully comprehending fun!
Right now we have an economic system that is for shite. We have few safety nets for single parents to truly thrive (not to mention we place a lot of crap on single parents for being single parents).
If there is a kid, what do we do once he/she is born?
So it isn’t keep it in your pants/legs closed….it’s deal with the realities of sex. Discuss. Be clear. Use the protections we have. Lots of people do this and don’t get pregnant. Discuss what the consequences are if there is a pregnancy.
And then lobby for the change you want to see.
The kid is there by the woman’s choice. Once that decision is in place it becomes all about the child (or about what the woman wants for the child).
I don’t see how a single parent can be expected to thrive unless they are extremely wealthy or have an extensive support network. The safety net is supposed to catch you if you fall not enable a woman to go it alone because she wants to be a mother.
Well, other countries have more socialized systems and seem to manage. Problems yes, but we have other ones. Then if the single parent is alone, no safety net, we talk child support.
Avoiding an unwanted pregnancy from the beginning should be the goal then.
Julie –
So, I’ve been doing my best to be positive about what you say, but with all due respect you just don’t have a clue about the male experience.
My experience is that a man who says no to a woman who wants PIV sex never gets a second chance from her. That is just the way it is. If you have a problem with that, you need to work on women, not men. None of your repetitive extolling of the wonders of oral sex or manual sex changes the reality that women are extreeeemeeelllyyy spoiled about getting the sex they want when they want it.
I get that for women the decision whether to bring a fetus to term is profoundly personal and that no woman is ever going to allow a man to have any input into that decision. I hope you can have enough empathy to understand the level of powerlessness that imposes on men, whether the woman decides to have the child or not. Telling men their only really effective alternative is to just be celibate, so they are never placed in that position, is the opposite of empathetic on your part. And 8ball is 100% correct about the hypocrisy on feminist boards about this.
As for single parenthood being stigmatized, what do you base that on? This past Saturday’s NYT ran a front-page article about how more than 50% of all births to US women below the age of 30 are now out of wedlock, and how women don’t see any big deal in it. The surge in out of wedlock births has been especially high among white women in their 20s.
And, to top it off, under Obamacare men get no free contraception, no free sterilization, no free contraception counseling, no free prostate cancer screening, no free testicular cancer screening, no free counseling if they test HIV+, while women are entitled to free contraception, free sterilization, free breast cancer screening, free cervical cancer screening, free counseling if they text HIV+, and free doctor visits for all of the above, while men have to pay for both the procedure / test and the accompanying doctor’s visit.
At long, long last are YOU prepared to be an ally to the gender that really needs a political ally?
“My experience is that a man who says no to a woman who wants PIV sex never gets a second chance from her. That is just the way it is. If you have a problem with that, you need to work on women, not men. None of your repetitive extolling of the wonders of oral sex or manual sex changes the reality that women are extreeeemeeelllyyy spoiled about getting the sex they want when they want it.”
I cannot speak to this for every man, nor for every woman. Only based on my experience and the experiences of people that I hear from who do have sex in many other ways than PIV. Obviously PIV is extremely important to men and to women (straight ones certainly), so that’s why I’d expect that both members of that relationship would have contraception, back up plans, and at the very best, conversations about what to do if a fetus is created. My experiences with men (I’ve known quite a few) is that talking about sex is a good thing, using condoms has been not a question, but an expectation, and both parties take responsibility. People can’t have it both ways. Sex is powerful and we should treat it as such. Some would advocate no sex until marriage, but I advocate extraordinary education and communication, realizing that people are going to have sex.
I can’t speak for the men and women you know.
“I get that for women the decision whether to bring a fetus to term is profoundly personal and that no woman is ever going to allow a man to have any input into that decision. I hope you can have enough empathy to understand the level of powerlessness that imposes on men, whether the woman decides to have the child or not. Telling men their only really effective alternative is to just be celibate, so they are never placed in that position, is the opposite of empathetic on your part. And 8ball is 100% correct about the hypocrisy on feminist boards about this.”
I personally don’t advocate celibacy, not at all. Will you please let me know where you see me saying that? I’ve advocated comprehensive sex ed, communication between partners, and a wide variety of contraceptive choices (including advocating for male contraceptives). I don’t expect people to stop having sex.
I know several couples who have had to struggle with unexpected pregnancies and have had great empathy for the difficult and extremely personal choices those couples made together. Perhaps I’ve been quite lucky in my life (and so too have been my peers), but my life has been filled with people willing to communicate and plan ahead of time. I advocate that, and realize that even with it, things can still take a random turn. Until we have a system that can help a parent provide for a child (and I know many people are fiercely against socialized health care, etc) but perhaps that could take pressure of a man who does not want to pay child support.
“As for single parenthood being stigmatized, what do you base that on? This past Saturday’s NYT ran a front-page article about how more than 50% of all births to US women below the age of 30 are now out of wedlock, and how women don’t see any big deal in it. The surge in out of wedlock births has been especially high among white women in their 20s.”
I saw a great many comments here for one. I grew up in the deep south. Single mothers were highly shamed.
“And, to top it off, under Obamacare men get no free contraception, no free sterilization, no free contraception counseling, no free prostate cancer screening, no free testicular cancer screening, no free counseling if they test HIV+, while women are entitled to free contraception, free sterilization, free breast cancer screening, free cervical cancer screening, free counseling if they text HIV+, and free doctor visits for all of the above, while men have to pay for both the procedure / test and the accompanying doctor’s visit.”
They should. I’m not sure how to put it any other way. Both sexes (all sexes) should have access to the same counseling, same resources. I don’t work in the Obama admin currently, so all I can do is write letters
At long, long last are YOU prepared to be an ally to the gender that really needs a political ally?
I’ve been an ally for men and women, LGBTQ communities, the mentally ill, children, and higher education for a damn long time. This is simply the first time you’ve ever heard of me.
@JustAMan, I know that your post confuses the problems currently facing men in the realm of sexual health and what @JulieGillis is talking about, and she has sorted out these confusions very nicely (way to go), I did take issue with this one statement:
“No woman is ever going to allow a man to have any input into that decision.”
As a woman who has experienced an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy in my teens with my long term boyfriend, his opinion and input into the decision was my number once influence during this tough time. He helped me lay out my options and the implications that came with each choice. He went to planned parenthood by himself on his own initiative so that he could get the same information I had received. I can honestly say I probably would have ended up making a different decision if it wasn’t for his input and support.
Involving your boyfriend/lover/husband in your decision with what to do with a pregnancy has been hugely important to my friends that have had abortions or are now mothers- your generalization makes women sound like they have their heads stuck in their own uterus and will only make the decision that is most convenient for them. As a man, you do have a huge influence in what the final decision will be. It may not be perfectly equal, but I will chalk that up to the nature of pregnancy and child rearing- it is still going to be the woman’s body that will bear the pregnancy. Men should have equal access to birth control, information, screening, and options when it comes to their future children (or lack there of), and while we might not be there yet (thank you right wing conservatives for holding everyone down), it is not very useful in the meantime to generalize and tar whole groups with one paint brush.
We live in a world where legal precedent states that a man’s ejaculate is a “gift” and what his partner chooses to do with it after the fact is none of his affair. If she so chooses to imregnate herself with it, he is still legally oligated to provide child support. It doesn’t matter if he wore a condom, was raped, was underage, or even had PIV sex. If that kid has your DNA (and sometimes even if it doesn’t) Yu’re on the hook.
This is not a standard women are held to. Women are allowed to bail out at any point in the process, are able to limit their partner’s involvement at will, and the courts do not care.
I once read an article (that I wish I could find now) that said that somewhere between 10-20% of women would be willing to “trick” their partners into fathering a child with them.
Men, literally, do not *have* reproductive rights.
–As first posted by 8ball
“We live in a world where legal precedent states that a man’s ejaculate is a “gift” and what his partner chooses to do with it after the fact is none of his affair. If she so chooses to imregnate herself with it, he is still legally oligated to provide child support. It doesn’t matter if he wore a condom, was raped, was underage, or even had PIV sex. If that kid has your DNA (and sometimes even if it doesn’t) Yu’re on the hook.
This is not a standard women are held to. Women are allowed to bail out at any point in the process, are able to limit their partner’s involvement at will, and the courts do not care.
I once read an article (that I wish I could find now) that said that somewhere between 10-20% of women would be willing to “trick” their partners into fathering a child with them.
Men, literally, do not *have* reproductive rights.”
This is PRECISELY the sort of thing I wanted to get talking about when I posted my small comment on Male Contraception. Condoms are not enough. A good example of this is that there ARE female condoms but women don’t use them (generalization, but it’s effectively true.) Why not? Unwieldy, loss of sensation, etc etc. Also prone to higher failure rate then the pill, when taken properly. So then we have the male pill, but Western society refuses to acknowledge the need for it. And I can tell you that it’s not young men like me shooting it down. I’ve even gone so far as to write the damn pharma companies.
So I decided to start doing some digging as to why they don’t want to. After all, even the male pill would be a long-term money maker. Turns out, a significant percentage (not majority, I’m betting, but significant and vocal) of feminists oppose its introduction. Here’s a poor example, but it’s a conversation I’ve had personally with feminists with the same view point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDGRioMJHYI
IT’S SO DAMN FRUSTRATING.
What I’m trying to say, 8ball, is that actually mainstream society is telling both men and women conflicting messages about sex. It’s cool/normal/expected to have sex. But good people don’t have too much sex, and don’t have sex while they’re in high school. And coming from a place where there were plenty of unwanted pregnancies (both by teenagers and by adults), I can tell you that a lot of the reaction from the community was “she should have kept her legs shut,” right along with, “he should have kept it in his pants.”
And I think both of those sentiments are horrible. As Julie says: “You don’t have to keep it in your pants at all! Have fun with it! Mutually communicated, STD protected, fully comprehending fun!” And I fully agree.
Heather and Julie –
My question for you is very simple. Should men have equal reproductive rights with women or not?
A woman has the unilateral right to decide to terminate her child rearing and child support obligations. She can do this by terminating a pregnancy. She can also do this after birth in most states by unilaterally turning the child in at a police station, fire station, hospital emergency room, and walking away, no questions asked. No need for paternal approval or even notice to the father.
In your opinion, should a man have the right to unilaterally terminate any child rearing and child support obligations by notice to the mother / alleged mother / authorities within some reasonable period of time after having been given written notice of his rights and obligations?
In theory? And it’s a sad, difficult theory. Probably so. Not being a legal expert in either side of the field, I feel pretty ill equipped to comment on what happens to the child and frankly there comes a point where the child takes precedence if he or she is brought into the world. The baby is who I empathize with at the stage.
I think there are already ways to terminate parental rights aren’t there?
I think we have a completely fucked up system both in terms of limited BC technologies for men but also lack of adequate social structures for parenting, and I’ve stated that emphatically so I’m not sure what more I can say. People who want to have sex and don’t want to get pregnant should both avail themselves of the contraceptives available. Does that mean that they have to think a little bit more? Yes. Does that mean both partners might have to use BC that isn’t perfect/feel perfect? Yes. Does that mean they will still have to communicate intent, acknowledge risk and be ready to deal with the consequences? Yes it does.
I’m trying to address realities on the ground before conception and that’s my focus. That’s always been my advocacy, and I can’t personally be all things to all advocacy, but would I advocate for more BC research for men? Yes. Would I encourage more sex ed in schools? Of course. Do I expect grown up people to communicate (even on a one night stand)? Yes I do.
I remember a sci fi show I watched once where aliens started living on earth. Females gestated for 4 months and then the embryo was transferred to the male. I thought, “Why couldn’t we have been like that.” Right now it’s created seeming inequities in so many directions.
Do I believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion. Hell yes I do. Do I suspect that men feel out of control when an unplanned pregnancy happens (regardless of the outcome)? Yes. And women feel out of control too.
That’s the thing even with wanted pregnancies. People feel out of control. They feel trapped, afraid, thrilled, terrified, resentful and more. So I get it. I’ve felt it. So has my husband and we wanted our kids, and still do. It completely changes the landscape.
And all I know to do right now, today, is to make sure people know how to avoid the pregnancy from the beginning.
And that definitely includes being judicious about who you sleep with, using the contraceptions on hand, and communicating very clearly. No room for, no pun intended, fucking around, if you want to avoid the pregnancy.
For those folks who are fighting for changes in the legal system after conception, that’s not my area of expertise, though I’m happy to keep learning.
Also, for that theory to hold? I think there would need to be some economic overhaul. It’s more than just man vs woman here. It’s about (for me anyway) what does our country value? Does our country value a system that provides basic needs for its citizenry or does it believe in this hard core you are on your own POV?
I don’t stand for a country that advocates against reproductive rights on the one hand, but then kicks parents to the curb on the other. It feels bipolar to me.
The whole thing is messed up and I can’t really say, yes fathers need X while the country isn’t set up for that. It’s a messed up deal, JustAMan.
I agree with what Julie is writing here. Look, my own personal point of view is a bit removed from these circumstances…these are situations I will never find myself in. But from where I sit, does a man deserve equal paternal rights? Yes. Ideally, in a world of chocolate rivers and candy trees, in order to make any decisions regarding adoption or abortion, both parents would need to agree. But the reality is that it isn’t always going to happen. Sometimes the potential mother and the potential father are just going to want different things.
And then you add onto that the time factor. These are decisions that need to be made within a very short time. So what do you do? Do you tell a woman she must continue her pregnancy and give birth so that the father can raise the child, if that’s what he wants? You’ve pretty much just taken over the woman’s body for 9 months and turned her into an incubator. Do you tell the father that he has no control and she can get an abortion without his knowledge? Well now you’ve just told the man that he is little more than a sperm bank.
Now for adoption, I think it’s a little more straightforward how it should work. The biological father should definitely be involved in an adoption process. Although…the reason that there are safe-space drop-off points is because even with all the available adoption options, some people panic. Like Julie said, pregnancy can make everyone involved feel a little out of control.
It’s tough. But when it comes to this article…we’re talking about before-pregnancy options. And here I think we need to do everything we can to promote communication, and the use of all forms of contraception as a viable option.
The crucial catch 22 for me with unwanted pregnancy choice and responsibility.
It becomes all about what is best for the child after the mother has the final say in wether there is a child. All about the child seems to be in reality all about the woman acting in place of the child.
There is no downside for a woman to fufill her desire to have a child at the expanse of someone else. If she can’t force a man to cover the expence she can pretty sure the state will cover for her.
I feel your answer of “probably so” is pretty weak. It is a yes or no type of question. Either men have the right or not.
I’ve always supported the right and availibility of abortion and a womans right to chose but lately I’m found my self reconsidering that. The sad part is it is mostly out of spite. If you wont support my rights as a person (male) why the hell am I supporting yours. I realize that does nothing to secure my rights but dragging you back down to my level does balance the scales and help achive partiy again. Though at a crappier level for all involved.
Here’s what I think. If the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, I don’t think the man should have a say in it.
If the woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn’t want to have the baby, he should not be liable for supporting the child. It must be incumbent on the woman to make an informed decision if she can look after the baby with her finances.
I think this makes it relatively fair for everyone concerned.
“There is no downside for a woman to fufill her desire to have a child at the expanse of someone else. If she can’t force a man to cover the expence she can pretty sure the state will cover for her.”
I think there are a lot of fundamental problems with this statement. My roommate is a single parent who had to move in with me b/c she couldn’t afford to cover her rent between the government grants and the half-assed always-late child support her ex sends. As an anecdote, I see a lot of problems she has to face– it took her several years to get into funded daycare (which delayed her high school graduation by 2 years), her college has a three year waiting list to get into THEIR funded daycare, she has been taken to court four times by her ex as he tried to humiliate her and “prove” that she was “wasting” money by going to college, she had to deal with her ex denying she was pregnant throughout the duration of her pregnancy then suddenly demanding equal custody two months after a birth he did not attend, support, or acknowledge, and years of social stigmatization point that it is not the cakewalk you make it seem for single women. There are many downsides when it comes to completely an unexpected pregnancy, and minimizing these will not increase the sympathy that “coerced” dads get (and deserve in many cases). Saying that the single ladies have it easy does not take a load off the dads, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.
“If you wont support my rights as a person (male) why the hell am I supporting yours. I realize that does nothing to secure my rights but dragging you back down to my level does balance the scales and help achive partiy again.”
I see you admit that dragging females down to “your level” when it comes to reproductive rights is very unproductive and a waste of time for everyone involved. Keep this in mind- your posts express a lot of issues that I agree with as a feminist (equal paternal rights, increased access to birth control for males, government covering male screening/condoms/prostate checks etc). My desire for rights over my body as a female do not cut down your right as a male to rights. They are not mutually exclusive, and should always be complimentary. The topic of reproduction is one that is touchy, and I’m sorry if you find those very intelligent posts above “a little weak”, because they are as accurate as it gets when it comes to describing our current state of rights. Feminism describes equal rights for all genders, whether that be female, male, transgendered, androgynous, or non-gendered. That is what we aim for- not a group of females running around with protective barriers over our uterus’s cutting the rights of men off at the knees. Though you admit to your fault the way you view this issue, it is important to remember the definition of feminism when you enter into a discussion like this.
@ Jenna
“then suddenly demanding equal custody two months after a birth he did not attend, support, or acknowledge”
I don’t see that as problematic. If a man has no control over a woman’s pregnancy he should have no obligations to her either. If he has obligations to the resulting child, then he should have rights to the child also. I see no contradiction.
As far as men being coerced fathers, there is precedent for it. Women can put children up for adoption without the consent of the father at least in my state if she claims to not know who the father is. She terminates both the mother and father’s parental rights. The father may end up with visitation someday if he finds out, but that’s not the same as raising your child. Mothers who place their children for adoption without the consent of the father are not required to pay child support to the adoptive parents. A man should be able to adopt his child to the mother and avoid rights and obligations.
I suspect that a male birth control pill becoming commonly available will undermine, if not outright destroy, any widespread male opposition to the idea of contraception. Even the most selfish and arrogant man, confronted with an opportunity to put HIMSELF in control of whether he causes a pregnancy by choice, will opt for it.
All that will be left is a few religious and social reactionaries who condemn anyone having a choice, male or female.
I’d have thought the same thing about women and contraception…but there are plenty of women out there who are against it. After all…it was a woman who introduced the lovely Virginia bill that requires any woman who wants an abortion to first have a transvaginal ultrasound. And the bill passed. I know that’s abortion and not contraception…but you wouldn’t think a woman would have introduced it.
I do hope, though, that you’re right and that when we do get a male pill, the majority of the opposition to it will disappear. What I seriously don’t get is men who argue that hormonal contraception isn’t necessary because of condoms. Wouldn’t you prefer it if your sexual partner was taking responsibility too?
You make a good and depressing point, Heather. Curse you!
Um…I also used the word transvaginal. It’s a silly word. Just think of that to cheer you up.
“Men will, with certainly, be able to decide when they are ready to be a father without being told to just “keep it in their pants” which no one would ever DARE tell a woman.”
Really. Because the phrase “keep your legs closed” has NEVER been aimed at women in the history of anything ever. Except wrong.
BC, or prophylaxis, extends the number of encounters, on average, before the folks involved get either pregnant or infected.
Walter Williams, I believe it was, said the way for a woman to avoid poverty is to finish high school, get a job, get married, and have a kid, in that order. Mess up the order and you’re very likely to be poor. Follow the sequence and the likelihood a woman will be poor is under ten percent.
Of course, she could avoid the kid part altogether and have a pretty good chance, with or without marriage.
However, if she messes up the order, or skips the marriage thing, she’s likely to be poor. Poor people don’t generate tax revenues. Non-poor people generate tax revenues. So to support those who eschew Williams’ sequence, we have to take money from those who followed the rules, deferred gratification and ended up non-poor to support those who laughed at the rules, told society the rules were for tight-assed bluenoses and screw you. There’s a limit to how much the folks who followed Williams’ sequence are going to want to pony up, especially if in return they get crap for being so uptight and judgmental. I don’t know when society is going to find that number, but it looks as if we’re on the way.
Okay I’m really unable to see what you’re trying to say with this comment. That women should get a job after high school and not go to college? That they should get married and have kids? That birth control is a way that poor people are trying to suck money from non-poor people? Except that when it comes to insurance paying for it, you have to have a job in order to have insurance. So really it’s working people that this would affect the most.
Plus, how old is William’s sequence?
Heather. I’m not saying anybody should do anything. Williams’ sequence is how you can avoid being poor if you want to have a kid. Mess up the sequence and you’re almost certain to be poor. If you want to throw college in there, do so. But don’t forget the sequence of marriage and then kids. But it’s a free country. Do what you like, but if the most likely thing, the most predictable thing, happens, have the grace not to complain you’ve been treated shabbily.
Birth control is not a matter of poor people trying to suck money from non-poor people. ’cause if the poor, or the working on being poor, used birth control, they wouldn’t have kids and might not even be poor so they wouldn’t be sucking money from the non-poor.
You don’t need a job for insurance. You can buy an individual program and every state, according to law, has to have a “last resort” insurer who will take you regardless of pre-existing conditions. And if you don’t have a job, or if you do and you’re still poor, you can get Medicaid.
As it happens, one of the most stable currencies in the world is food stamps. They have been exchanged for cash at a 30% discount all over the country for decades. People don’t change a dollar’s worth of food stamps for seventy cents worth of something else if they’re actually hungry. So some of the assistance can be converted to contraception instead of whatever else is desired. Or if you’re not poor, you can buy it yourself instead of having the non–poor and the insurance premium payors pay for it. Nobody’s staking out the drug store to stop the sale of contraceptives. But just try to buy something for a runny nose.
Or, and this is a toughie in the twenty-first century, you can refrain from activities biologically designed for procreation. Been done, you know.
But my last point in the previous post is that the ants are going to get tired of the grasshoppers sooner or later.
What I’m asking, is what all of this has to do with the Catholic church not wanting to pay for birth control for employees at religious-affiliated organizations?
I mean, yeah unemployed people can buy insurance, but it’s expensive. And if you can’t afford it there’s Medicaid…but only if you’re poor enough. My sister and her husband both make too much for Medicaid, and yet not enough to buy insurance…oh and their jobs don’t provide insurance. There is this middle, where you’re making too much for food stamps, and Medicaid, and yet not making enough to pay for hormonal contraception. And a heck of a lot of people fit in there.
And Williams’ sequence is just…well really weird. Like…my sister I mentioned earlier would fit into that sequence, and yet if they had a kid right now they’d be pretty damn poor. And then I have a cousin who could probably finance 3 kids no problem, but he doesn’t actually have a job, per-se…he just freelances compute tech stuff a bit while going to college…and he’s not married. And I’m not planning on ever having kids…but if I did I wouldn’t necessarily be married first (hell in most states I can’t get married anyway). Really….how old is William’s sequence anyway? Cuz it’s like right out of the 1950s.
And then you said this: “cause if the poor, or the working on being poor, used birth control, they wouldn’t have kids and might not even be poor so they wouldn’t be sucking money from the non-poor.”
Are you suggesting that the way out of poverty is to not have kids? And then you’ll be fine? That fails to take into account the global economy, and the local economies. Not to mention what sorts of jobs are available in your area and what you are qualified for…etc. Or the rising cost of education…I’m pretty damn poor, because all of my saved and borrowed money is going toward university.
And all of that is completely tangential to the topic, which was paying for birth control…not about really simplistic views of how to not be poor.
The way out of poverty generally consists of doing things the old, middle-class way. Defer gratification and all that old, stodgy stuff. Individual circumstances make for individual outcomes, but the point is the way a woman can practically guarantee to be poor is to mess up Williams’ sequence.
It is possible to be poor and have followed Williams’ sequence, but the chances are slimmer. Which is the point.
Now, I used to be in am semi-retired in, the insurance business. Here’s the deal about insurance and contraception. Contraception, as with first-dollar coverage for scrips and office visits, and routine testing, costs about as much in premium as the actual expenses themselves. The reason for this is that almost everybody is going to use this coverage at least every other year, if not every year, and you have to add administrative costs. It’s not like coverage against a heart attack which, although expensive, is rare and the company has years to accumulate the money to pay for it.
So, if the companies have the legal option–Obamacare doesn’t allow it, as far as anybody knows–they can sell a policy with deductibles for such common coverages with a lower premium and the purchaser saves the money. The purchaser then decides whether he needs such things as office calls or contraception. If so, he’s out about as much as he saved. If not, he’s ahead.
Keep in mind that you can buy contraception without insurance. And you can pay for it. Somebody is paying for it. If the employer pays for it, the employer has less money to pay the wages. If the government pays for it, it comes from taxpayers which is a drag on the economy, a strain on the taxpayer, and is subject to the horrendous government inefficiencies and corruption. If the individual pays for it, it’s done most efficiently. Both the use and the purchase of the contraception are done at the free choice of the individual, a concept which terrifies progressives.
Your current situation is your choice. The rest of us are supposed to kick in because…?
“Both the use and the purchase of the contraception are done at the free choice of the individual, a concept which terrifies progressives.”
Well but see…here’s where you’re losing me. Are you saying anything that is done out of free choice should be up to individuals to pay for? So public libraries shouldn’t exist…because reading is a choice? Education should all be private, because it’s a choice? Like…you see what I’m getting at? Some things are a choice, but it benefits society to make them easily obtainable.
In my opinion, contraception is one of those things. If it’s more easily obtainable, then there are fewer unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-only programs do not work. They just don’t. Sex isn’t just about procreation, it’s also about pleasure and desire and love and forming social bonds. So to simply say, just don’t have it, doesn’t work. So then contraception (in all it’s many forms) is the key.
Heather. We, as a society, have decided to pay for libraries through taxes.
I don’t want to play “I don’t get this”, but just this once, for fun: Are you threatening society with massive unplanned pregnancies if you don’t get free contraception?
Gosh, that was great.
Now. Contraception is easily available. If you happen to be short, it isn’t because of money, but of lack of planning.The insurance company isn’t going to be following you around, delivering your pills, nor following you on a date in case your date forgot his condom.
History: The original concept of the Health Maintenance Organization included free annual physicals. Figured getting the problem early would save money. Fail. They were marketed to governmental employee units and high-paid unionized employers. IOW, every family there had a recreation budget several times, more than that, the cost of an exam. So they could have afforded them in the first place. But they didn’t. Once the physicals were free…. They still didn’t. People who don’t want to get an exam won’t get an exam, no matter if it’s free. Or in this smaller case, even if it cost them a miniscule amount of their discretionary income.
So, as I say, making something free isn’t going to increase the use by much, if anything. Now, you being in archaeology, you wouldn’t have known this. But it happens to be true and unless the zero admin is as dumb as they look, they know it. Hence my two observations: This is about pushing state fiat, not contraception, and we’re the brokest nation in history and they’ve got us with outrage snot running down our chins about contraception.
Oh,yeah. When I was in college, there was a slow-dance song called “True Love Waits” . Waits for what has escaped me at the moment and probably forever.
My guess is that forming social bonds and finding true love, and whatnot, will survive waiting until somebody’s made a run to the drugstore. If it won’t, you have something else going on and expecting the rest of us to pay for it is nuts.
Your post still seems as if you think there is an unlimited supply of money and only mean-spiritedness is the issue here.
I think you’re misunderstanding me a bit here, Richard. I get that we, as a society, have agreed to pay for libraries. I’m saying I think contraception should also be something we, as a society, agree to pay for. I don’t think that having insurance cover it will make people use it more. Of course not. As you point out, people will or won’t use it regardless. Heck, you can get free condoms, but there are still plenty of people who don’t use them. That’s not the issue. The issue is that there are people who want to use it but can’t afford it. Or rather, there are people who already are using it but if their insurance stops covering it, they won’t be able to get it anymore.
Somewhere else on here I mentioned that condoms aren’t a replacement for hormonal contraception. The two compliment each other. Also, asking the man to be responsible for all contraception is putting unfair pressure on him. Both (or rather, all) parties should take responsibility for the potential for pregnancy. Contraception is not a luxury or a privilege…it’s a repsonsiblity.
I don’t think there’s an unlimited supply of cash lying around. I just think insurance covering contraception should be a priority. And here’s something…the majority of these religious-affiliated institutions already are covering it. The issue isn’t mean-spiritedness…it’s a religious organization (Catholic bishops) trying to nudge their beliefs into a secular legal system.
Heather. If it’s to be a priority, name a current priority which will be defunded to take care of BC. Defense doesn’t count because it’s too easy for lib/prog to BS about, as long as they have the freedom to do so, of course.
Something else.
Ask your colleagues if they think the man hours necessary to build Gobleki Tepe could have been supported by hunting and gathering, or do we need to rejigger the beginning of the neolithic.
Well if I had a copy of the amount of federal dollars that goes toward insurances paying for contraception, and a copy of the federal budget, and a degree in economics…I’d tell you. But without all of that, my first answer wouldn’t be defence…my first answer would be pork.
But that ignores the fact that the arguments made in the Congressional hearings about this had nothing to do with cost…and everything to do with religion influencing policy.
Alright so on the patriarchy side of things, I’d like to bring something up. With regards to the Congressional hearings, it seems really strange that everyone involved were men. Now if we were discussing contraception in general, then that wouldn’t be so bizarre. But those hearings were about Catholic-affiliated institutions employee insurance paying for female contraception. Surely they could have had a few women come in…if only because not having women involved brought up all sorts of controversy. The fact that they didn’t involve women, I think points to two possibilities.
Possibility One: They didn’t realize how bad it would look. The men involved in those hearings didn’t realize just how patriarchal the entire affair would seem. This is a world of 24 news channels and media sensationalism…and yet somehow these guys didn’t realize that the media would be all over this like a kitty on a mouse. They were just that oblivious.
Possibility Two: They did realize how bad it would look and just didn’t care. They knew full well that everyone would pounce on them for not including any women, and yet they decided against it anyway.
Now I don’t think we live in a patriarchy…and I certainly don’t ascribe to Patriarchy Theory. But you know what, if I was on the fence about it…this is exactly the sort of situation that would throw me over the edge. Because it’s so freaking easy to say that these guys are so entrenched in the ‘patriarchy’ that they didn’t see how controversial not including women would be. Or to say that these guys are so patriarchal that they didn’t care that women would be pissed off for not being included. (I’m not saying I think either of those things, but I’m saying it’s damn easy to come to that conclusion).
I don’t quite know what my point about this is…except to say that it was freaking stupid of them not to include women. It really didn’t help their cause (not that I was inclined to agree with them anyway).
I don’t want to get too picky, but
“in all likelihood, still be working out the details of these new gender agreements a century from now;”
If they’re new gender agreements does that mean that the current situation was negotiated? If it was negotiated then doesn’t that mean that patriarchy is a shame? Their Fruedian slip is showing. They have daddy issues.
All gender/class/ethnic/etc inequalities were/are negotiated. Society changes, and as it changes different groups obtain and lose a variety of benefits and responsibilities. As people become unhappy with the status quo, they rebel/revolt/have a revolution and change things. Or sometimes they make signs and hold a protest. But the idea is the same. We are always redefining and renegotiating our gender roles (and other identities).
And with regards to gender, neither men nor women have ever been completely without agency. It was just that the social spheres in which men and women had agency in have shifted….been renegotiated. Even in a proper patriarchy, women aren’t without agency…they just aren’t at the center of social/economic/political power.
“They have daddy issues”—-This is the exact sentence you should never say if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion.
Every once in a while, I feel the need to say something silly, but patriarchy does come from patriarch, which is somehow related to father. Pater in Latin is father. It probably would help if you knew that I believe that the initial gender constructs were negotiated and not imposed by men. Having the person who could feed the children stay with them and the stronger person do the hunting/gathering just made sense. Women support “the patriarchy” because they originally agreed to it.
Feminists tend to not believe this. Their insistence on believing t=something that doesn’t make sense is where the daddy issues crack stems from. Although I agree, it could have been phrased less snarky. The fact remains that the first step to equality is to acknowledge that these gender constructs no longer make sense in present society.
I did take a couple Latin courses, so I am aware of the root of the word patriarchy. I also think you are generalizing with the word “feminists”- I take the word “feminist” for the first webster definition which is equality between all genders (which I would include as men, women, transgendered, androgynous, and non-gendered). Feminism is about getting rid of oppression for all genders- the “man box”, the perfect housewife, the obligatory motherhood, the strict gender roles and so on. Women support these traditional roles as much as men, and have done so since the beginning of time. It is important to recognize that even though women were compliant with the gender roles created, they generally suffered more abuse, less control, and have had a longer road to go down to try and neutralize some of the damage that has been afflicted by historic suppression. That is not to say that men haven’t suffered tremendous abuse and damage from their imposed gender role- it is just that they historically had a healthy dose of privilege when it came to legal rights, economic stability, education opportunities etc. Even though women have been just as actively involved in creating and reinforcing these stereotypes and gender roles, saying that feminists are missing the point by bringing attention to some of the human rights issues that resulted possibly comes off as putting the blinders on to reality and just sticking with the theory. While it is an important theoretical point that gender roles were not originally imposed on women, the day-to-day reality (especially in countries that still hold less rights for females) is not always one that has been quietly negotiated between genders- it has often morphed into a state of oppression.
I absolutely agree that the first step to equality is to acknowledge that these gender constructs no longer make sense- they haven’t made sense for a very long time, and they are damaging to persons of all genders. I think this is what feminism is about, and as a feminist I think I have issues with human rights violations, not daddy issues.
@John Anderson
Oh I’m all for banning MGC. In the U.S. we have placed the secular above the religious in many instances…and MGC should be one of those. It causes harm – it should be banned. If a man wants to have it done to himself after he’s reached 18, then by all means…but parents shouldn’t be able to force their babies to undergo the procedure. (And, ya know, side note but I feel I gotta mention that the place where I first learned about how horrible MGC actually is – a gender studies class at my liberal university taught my a lesbian professor. We read some personal accounts and it was heartbreaking.)
So yeah, I think FGC and MGC should both be banned…I just also recognize that the practices stem from different traditions and beliefs.
And the example of incest you give, yeah I’d call that immoral, because the girls were under-age and probably indoctrinated.
As for the age of maturity/consent/what-have-you….I don’t know that there is a universal age. I mean to me, a lot of it stems from how each society treats teenagers. If I live in a world where, at 16, I’m expected to have already married and had a child…then I am expected to be more mature than in the states where I would still be going to school at 16. I know we could argue that the age of maturity should be based in biology, and obviously that’s true to some extent…but picking the exact year is something I think is more social than biological. And I don’t have an exact answer for you.
You know I’ve been dreading and looking forward to this conversation. I suggested moving It to a new thread because I thought that if we discussed the morality of incest, we’d probably get a bunch of people joining in. Anyway, I had never considered that incest could be alright. I always assumed that it was wrong so you bring up a good point.
The first thing I would check is consent. That’s why I was asking your opinion on age of consent and whether a person, who is dependent on their parents and family can actually consent. I’ve also been thinking of how coercion impacts free will. There was an article on limiting the number of children a sperm donor could father, which I don’t think should happen if he has reproductive rights, based on the possibility of accidental incest. That is disgusting, but now I’m not sure it’s even a problem.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034092/Fears-grow-accidental-incest-spread-disease-sperm-donor-fathers-150-children.html
I did think of one more thing. It’s kind of related to that story of the man being charged with rape because he told a woman he was Jewish even though he wasn’t. What if they would not have consent if they had known that they were siblings? I know my thoughts are disjointed. It’s because you have me thinking and I’m trying to figure out what I believe. It’s nice when people challenge your beliefs.
No worries about disjointed thoughts…I totally get it. There was a really interesting article I saw about marrying your cousin. It’s interesting because it sort of just gives out information without being biased on one side or the other. It’s different than a parent-child sexual relationship, but similar.
With regards to limiting the number of children a sperm donor could father, yeah I guess I could sort of see that. I mean kind of…I doubt it is actually a problem and more it’s something someone freaked out about as a possibility. I don’t think it’s to do with reproductive rights, though…because if my understanding is right, a sperm donor gives up all paternal rights when he donates. Just like an egg donor does. – you sort of do it understanding that you have no control over what happens to it later.
And yeah it’s an interesting question regarding consent and family members. I personally would say yes, it’s possible. I disagree with my family about a whole number of things…so I think I would be able to give consent (or not) with regards to sex if that ever came up. Although I was also raised in a family that wouldn’t have ever even considered incest, so I don’t have any first hand knowledge.
With regards to whether two people wouldn’t have had sex if they’d known they were siblings. Well that’s a tricky one. I don’t think it’d be rape (even if one of them did know). I think the idea of charging that guy with rape for saying he was Jewish when he wasn’t is outrageous. With regards to one-night-stands, people lie about all sorts of crap to hook up. It’s immoral, perhaps, but it shouldn’t be illegal. – anyway…specifically with regards to siblings…hmm…I also think that’d be immoral, to lie about familial ties in order to have sex with someone. But again I don’t think it should be illegal, I don’t think.
For me, when it comes to incest and coercion, it’s not just about believing that incest isn’t wrong. It’s about being indoctrinated to believe that it is somehow your duty or something. Like, in some sort of twisted belief that everyone should have sex with daddy – or mommy – or whoever. That’s when it starts to get criminal, because that is when it takes away individual choice.
And as for age – again such a difficult discussion. Personally, in the west, I think 18 is a good age for consent in most things. I think our society still treats teenagers as less-than-adults…and so putting the age of consent at 18 makes sense. Although, I also don’t think that stigmatizing sex in high school is a good thing. Maybe it should be two ages or something. Fourteen to seventeen is one bracket, but 18 is the age where you can give consent to someone else over the age of 18? I think California has something similar to that in place…not exactly, but something like that, I think.
I’m sort of thinking this through while I type it too, so I hope I’m making sense.
I kind of like 18 too. People mature more slowly these days. The economy is different requiring a more information and interpersonal skill set and people live longer. Since 18 is the age that we set for a;; other adult activities like drinking, it’s a good place to set the age. Illinois has a tiered system. I think it’s 16 as long as the older person is no more than 5 years older than the younger, person and 18 is legal regardless of the age difference.
I find the debate on age interesting because I had two(?) distinct experiences where this would have come into play. One, a few days prior to my 16th birthday my high school held a religious retreat in the dormitory of a women’s college. They were having financial problems and before going coed rented out some unused floors. The high school boys, girls and college women were separated by floors, but there was a common floor, which had a lunch room and gym and the high school girls were allowed on the boys floor because the retreat activities had to be held somewhere.. The common area gave me access to the college girls and I was aggressive in the attempt. Almost every interaction was initiated by me and it paid off in two sexual encounters. It would have been three, but I wasn’t as discreet as I should have been and the teacher was monitoring us and intercepted some college girls in the elevator headed to our floor. One was given me room number. When she spoke to me about her discovery, I didn’t rat them out because I thought I was in trouble. That was the second time she talked to me about my interactions with the women. I now understand that she was just trying to protect me.
The second time, I was tagging along with some friends to visit one of their friends homes. I was greeted and immediately hit on by his wife. A friend stopped it by telling me that she hits on everyone. After that she left and I sat down. I noticed two girls dressed in sweats. The oldest was about 12 or 13. She brought me a drink and offered some chips, which I accepted. I thought she was being gracious. I didn’t pay attention to the fact that she offered none to my friends. We’ve known each other a long time and tell each other that you know where everything is don’t expect to be served. I thought I was being served because I was new. She comes back wearing a short skirt and a blouse unbuttoned to her naval. She bends over right in front of me supposedly so I could see the game she was holding, but I’m pretty sure it was so I could see that she wasn’t wearing a bra. I told everybody that I wasn’t playing with her unless she covered up. My friends just laughed. They knew what was going to happen.
As an aside, the high school girls tormented us. I think that they might have been jealous of the attention that we were giving the college women. They used their access to our floor to steal our clothes. You weren’t given keys so you couldn’t lock the door. They threatened to invade our shower and a few of them even followed me into the bathroom to show me that they had the run of the place. They never invaded our showers. They gave back the clothes without too much stress to the poor guy and the girls who followed me into the bathroom stayed by the sinks. It was all stalls anyway even the showers. That was cool. I don’t want you to think they were that bad. I might tell you about why the shower stalls aren’t fool proof for privacy, but that’s another day. This was the closest I’ve come to experiencing the constant worry that women face. Reading about street harassment was what initially brought back this memory. I only had to experience it for a weekend.
I don’t think I was traumatized by having sex with older women,, but think tht the adult bears the responsibility to protect the child.
Now that I have some coherent thought on the topic of incest, I have come to a preliminary position on it. I start with what would be wrong with any sex? That would be rape or if one person doesn’t consent or can’t reasonably give consent. The age of consent should be at least 18, since people mature slower than they did in the past. There is some biological evidence to suggest that it should be later. I’ve heard that there is a change in our brains when we reach I believe it’s 25 that restrains us from engaging in reckless behavior, but when you consider puberty being about 13, 18 is a good mean age. Incest between parent and child is immoral when the child has been significantly raised by the parent especially in their formative years. In this case the child can’t be reasonably expected to have any agency regardless of age. I can see an exception for children given up at birth, who have had no contact with their parent until the age of 18. Since it is hard to define significant, society should err on protecting the child and so parent / child incest should be banned with the one possible exception.
Incest among siblings is more complex, but older siblings can still exert influence on younger siblings. I think an age difference of more than two years would prevent reasonable consent. I also think that siblings within two years of each other can’t reasonably give consent until the age of 25 or o. I think it could be allowed, but tend to believe that there should be a higher age of consent. In the example of half siblings fathered by sperm donors, who are not raised together, I don’t see a problem with it at least not from a logical perspective. We now look at biological harm. Some researchers believe that children born of incest have a stronger propensity to pass on congenital problems. I don’t know what the answer would be. Society can’t prevent someone from reproducing or being irresponsible. Could society ban incest based on the potential that the resulting child will have physical or mental deficiencies? I don’t think you can.
I find incest to be unethical and personally disgusting, but logically I don’t see how all forms of incest could be banned. As an aside, would that mean that there should be no abortion allowance for incest as any prohibited incest would be prohibited because it constituted rape?
@ Heather
“Oh I’m all for banning MGC. In the U.S.”
Glad to hear it. I’m only thinking of the U.S. right now. I haven’t reached the level where I routinely consider other countries. I guess it’s like feminism. MRAs are concerned about the U.S. and the west first. I think it’s important that feminists are more vocal about supporting a ban. I think that it fails to get the traction in feminist circles because feminists, who support a ban, are coy about it.
I think a discussion of banning either MGC or FGC in other countries would be a different conversation…because then I don’t know. I’d still say ban it, personally, because I consider it harmful. But…well that’s just totally not taking into account the way an individual country/culture feels about it.
But yeah, in the states, totally should be banned. It’s odd…I don’t know that us feminists who are against it are coy about it, so much as we just don’t think to mention it. This goes back to the men in feminism article…but if it’s mostly/only women working in feminism, then even those of us who do care about men’s rights might not always think to bring them up. Not because we don’t care…but just because we aren’t men.
Good point Heather, when people (often men but not always) start talking about rights that are neglected for males, transgendered, and non-gendered individuals in the feminist movement, it is not because “the feminists” are blindly pushing an agenda of female domination- it is because these groups are underrepresented in the feminist movement. Feminism is about equality for ALL genders- concerns and issues should come from every single gender. MGC probably hasn’t been brought up frequently in feminist circles because it is an issue that men are primarily concerned with (though it obviously affects females as well ex. mothers), and men generally don’t gravitate to the feminist movement. Men wanting to raise awareness on this issue of MGC would find support in the feminist community, because it always truly comes down to human rights and overall equality.
Many of the people who post on GMP were feminists or in my case an almost feminist, but were turned off by the response many feminists had to men’s issues. It may have been the particular circle of feminists that particular person encountered that convinced them that feminism isn’t for them. It may have been that particular day or topic. I think that many men here realize that individual feminists may have different opinions on what feminism is. It’s great that you believe that the goal of feminism is equality. Hopefully, you and Heather could convince the other feminists that equality is the goal of feminism. When that becomes clear, I’m sure that men will be better represented within feminism. I will continue to dialogue with feminists, but will not count myself among them.
“I will continue to dialogue with feminists, but will not count myself among them.”
That, to me, is more important anyway.
“Men wanting to raise awareness on this issue of MGC would find support in the feminist community, because it always truly comes down to human rights and overall equality.”
Where can they go to get this support? Is there a website full of egalitarian feminists? I’ve been on a mission to find one site like this where a man could mention male issues and not get blasted out. noseriouslywhataboutthemenz is probably the only one I can think of, are there any others that will talk about both genders?
>Men, in return, thrived. The ego candy they feasted on by virtue of automatically outranking half the
>world’s population was only the start of it. They got full economic and social control over our bodies,
>our labor, our affections, and our futures.
Oooh, close, but… WRONG!
Women gained full economic and social control over men’s bodies, men’s labor, affections, and futures. All the fruit’s of a man’s labor, were a woman’s. A man had to provide for his wife and children, (notice the order, wife first, children second) to the point of dying before she did; he risked his life in dangerous jobs, or protect her from an attack, or served in the army, while she remained safe at home, getting to demand all kinds of things from him as her provider.
indeed, failure as a man to properly provide for his wife and children (a question how he things he’s going to do that still asked by fathers today) could end you up in divorce, tossed out into the street, or even killed; especially if she died in a bandit attack while the husband remained unharmed by running away.
Men, also, did not thrive… AT ALL. They died, and died, and died, and died some more, then died again. They worked themselves into an early grave to get some meager food on his family’s table. That was the fate of 99% of men’s population. Violence dispensor and absorber and beast of burden, in service of his wife (and children) .
Oh, and women also weren’t forced to be baby reerers and baby makers, they WANTED to be, they STILL do, it’s in fact, genetically ingrained by evolution instinct. Without it, humanity would have died out a long time ago. Indeed, the pill didn’t bring women into the work force, TECHNOLOGY did. Men built technology that took away the heavy lifting, partially so women could actually do jobs, along with appliances that made housework a light part-time job instead of a full-time job, freeing up time to do something else. The jobs the men performed in the passed, either got them killed (which meant women refused to do them) or the job was so heavy, women couldn’t perform them. They simply didn’t have the strength and stamina to perform for example a blacksmith’s duties.
As for massively changing society, how about a Male Contraceptive Pill. Imagine, women can no longer claim not to be fertile, or being on the pill, take sperm out of a condom to get herself pregnant and defraud men from their money and freedom. Nope, with the male pill, all that sperm is useless!
Guess what! There are three of them! All ready to be released into the market!