This post has been brought to you by Ozymandias’s useless major.
About ozyfrantz
Ozy Frantz is a student at a well-respected Hippie College in the United States. Zie bases most of zir life decisions on Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, and identifies more closely with Pinkie Pie than is probably necessary. Ozy can be contacted at [email protected] or on Twitter as @ozyfrantz. Writing is presently Ozy's primary means of support, so to tip the blogger, click here.
@Clarence: I don’t know, a few places have already gone so far as to change to an “affirmative defense” model wherein the lack of consent isn’t a requirement for rape (and thus doesn’t have to be proven) but the presence of consent is an affirmative defense against the charge, meaning that if one is accused of rape, one can attempt to prove consent (at a “preponderance of the evidence” standard) as a defense and have it challenged, rather than it being required to prove a lack of consent as a necessary part of the crime. More or less the only… Read more »
^ Ok to be fair I said that while in-biding a significant amount of alcohol… so take of it as you will! THE POINT STILL HOLDS!
I think the principle there is that women dont’ want to go to heavily male-infested bars. I wonder what the commentary is on that…
I mean alcohol adds being aimed towards men is kind of shitty if you think about it. “MEN!” they proclaim, “YOU NEED TO DRINK MORE OF THIS SUBSTANCE WHICH IS HIGHLY ADDICTIVE AND DAMAGING TO YOUR BODY!”
Recently, my local big-town (Montreal) newspaper has covered the issue of ladies night and free drinks and half-price drinks for women only.
And it’s said that it’s awful that it’s like that. Not because it’s a sexist, outdated notion that women don’t like/want to drink and won’t go to bars. Solely on the basis of wanting to prevent excessive drinking.
This is also the same newspaper that recently ran a piece on male victims of DV with a “THEY EXIST! OMG, I didn’t know!” angle, even if they painted them as a very small minority.
While I agree completely that monsters with human bodies exist…
That trite old saw to “be careful when you fight monsters not to be a monster yourself” exists for one simple reason:
Lack of empathy CAN be a learned thing.
One need not be born a sociopath to act like one in meaningful ways.
Another quote along those lines:
Sociopaths can blend in with normal people, and normal people can blend in with sociopaths.
(TW for violence) Amen SG! It’s not just saving people from the potential of being violated by a stranger. It’s telling these fuckwad asshole “I am all there is” rapists that they are not all there is, and in fact, they are the ones that deserve to be beaten, broken and damned. I don’t much go for the “E” word these days, but I think there is Evil in these people. They who take without asking, they who parade their entitlement upon their sleeves. I would see those who have wronged me burn in righteous fire. I would snap the… Read more »
Trigger warning: The following is something that’s been welling up inside me for a long time and needs unleashing. I just don’t have a safe place to unleash it because my world is filled with rape victims and I’m rather sick and tired of it. So without further ado, a letter to rapists everywhere: Dear Rapist, I really hope my friends who are victims don’t see this because they need me to be strong and stoic, not rage-filled and barely under control. But this needs to be said because while *they* may need the strength of me keeping this in,… Read more »
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/cheap_dates_EnfcHi7NwBAkD3RYMUWv6I
Hey look what I found!
*passes some pitchforks and torches*
“keep your legs closed, honey” is what I think of when any dipshit says something about keeping it in your pants
btw, I am against abortion but pro-choice
Ozy: “Choice for men” options will leave many women coerced into abortions they don’t want or that are against their moral beliefs (which violates, in my opinion, the absolute right to bodily autonomy) and many children without even the extra income that they get under the current system, much less the extra caring parent they deserve. Is that to mean that a woman’s bodily autonomy trumps a man’s right to whether or not he should be in the child’s life? As in he should not have that choice because it might put the woman in a position of doing something… Read more »
On Abortion, revised from my Blogpost of my 30th Birthday: I’m tired of *BOTH* sides using Ad Hominem and emotivity on Abortion. So, I’m gonna break it down for ya. Pro-choicers: “IT’S A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE! WOMEN DON’T OWN THEIR OWN BODIES! BAWWWW!!!” Well, I think it shouldn’t get to a point where abortion needs to come into the picture in the first place. More and better sex ed, More contraception, and lose the whole shame thing. That said, life is what happens when you’re making other plans, and you might be planning to have Jr, but then, oh… Read more »
OMG I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING. Let’s imagine, for a second, that the procedure for “abortion” involves removing the fetus, encased in a shell and discarding it. The fetus does not “die” instantly during the abortion and can be implanted in the father’s body. The father harvests the “aborted fetus” and gestates it, and gives birth. He then petitions for child support from the mother – would you support this, Ozy? Imagine you could not “kill” the fetus – you could only remove it from your body. Would you be OK with another person taking the fetus and making you… Read more »
As far as “bodily autonomy” vs “planning for parenthood” I’m not entirely sure what you mean. I think I define the right to “bodily autonomy” to mean “not having something growing inside of you that you don’t want there” then I completely agree and recognize that biology tips the scales in women’s favor. I don’t think there can be any argument there. I don’t think that a fetus’s “right to continue being supported” trumps a woman’s control over her own body. Full stop. I also think that once a baby is born that it deserves the support of BOTH biological… Read more »
And by “doing such a thing” I mean depriving a potential person of existence if that was in any way unclear.
“You could just as easily say that every time I use a contraceptive that I’m depriving a potential person of existence, and isn’t that just terrible.”
I could, but I never said that there is anything wrong in doing such a thing. Stop trying to read my mind.
“Do you think it’s worse to live with relatively less money because one parent isn’t providing it than to not live at all then?”
You could just as easily say that every time I use a contraceptive that I’m depriving a potential person of existence, and isn’t that just terrible.
The “choice for men” discussion makes my face twitch… but if we’re going to have it, can I ask for a ban on the “just keep it in your pants” argument? There are few things more irritating then “pro-choice” people aping the argments of their opponents when the situation suits them.
tu quotue:
Actually, no. I’d argue there is one that is bigger than lack of “choice for men” because men have never really HAD a choice to begin with and thus allowing for such a choice would be an expansion of men’s civil rights. Which is a good thing. But as Hugh writes about here:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/09/18/new-campus-sexual-misconduct-policy-threatens-civil-liberties-noh/
already existing rights for men are being decimated. So in effect, we are going backward.
“‘Choice for men’ options will leave many women coerced into abortions they don’t want or that are against their moral beliefs (which violates, in my opinion, the absolute right to bodily autonomy) and many children without even the extra income that they get under the current system, much less the extra caring parent they deserve.” I don’t know how you can write this and not see that it justifies choice for men. If a woman having an abortion she doesn’t want is a violation of absolute bodily autonomy, then forcing men to provide for children they did not want or… Read more »
“Children are sentient. Fetuses are not.”
Do you think it’s worse to live with relatively less money because one parent isn’t providing it than to not live at all then?
Brokensystem: Children are sentient. Fetuses are not. EE: Don’t get me wrong– it is a REALLY unfair situation for men and for children (who deserve to have a father instead of a check once a month). None of the solutions are really good, except for “more support for working-class and middle-class parents”; I’m just arguing that this situation is the least shitty. “Choice for men” options will leave many women coerced into abortions they don’t want or that are against their moral beliefs (which violates, in my opinion, the absolute right to bodily autonomy) and many children without even the… Read more »
Ozy, you’re assuming that the child is already born. A woman has a choice to bring a child into the world without a father (sperm donor, one night stand with anonymous man). If a woman becomes pregnant but doesn’t want to raise the child alone, she may abort.
We worked hard for the right to legal, safe abortions – I can’t get on board with denying men the same right to planned parenthood that women have.
Ozy says: “I believe that not letting men “opt out” of pregnancy is the best of a bunch of really shitty options. Unfortunately, biology has unfairly made it that men have fewer options than women do as regards pregnancy, which means that some men are going to end up supporting children they never wanted. However, it’s even worse if a child doesn’t have at least two incomes (preferably two loving caregivers, but at least two incomes); it’s even more unfair to punish the child for its parents decisions.” But it’s not bad when a child is aborted and never even… Read more »
that two income thing stung me … I will also point out that people without children speaking about parenting and such are speaking as outsiders, as observers. And to me, being alive and poor is better than being aborted and non-existent. IMO lifestyle is a bad reason to have an abortion…but I am 100% pro-choice. Also IMO the state should step up and help middle class and poor folk rather than (for example) give tax cuts to the rich. I have a hard time blaming people for their misfortunes when the powers that be cause that misfortune in the first… Read more »
Jim: It’s not even THAT. It goes farther: see, the very people saying in this thread about how a child needs “two parents” and “two incomes” are also against “shotgun” marriages and /or reforms in divorce laws to make it harder to break up families with children. See, the traditional nuclear and extended families are excellent ways of building up capital – this effect is totally lost when families are split up willy-nilly for no good reason. If we cared about children, we’d protect their families by making it clear to adults that they have higher responsibilities when they bring… Read more »