Skip to main content

"You don't tug on Superman's cape.  You don't spit into the wind. You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with…” — Jim Croce “Don't Mess Around With Jim.”

Think abortion rights are just a woman's problem? Think again...

Sexism is like spitting into the wind. What you get back is your own fault.

It’s a common misconception that reproductive rights are solely a woman’s fight while men are outsiders either rooting from the sidelines or acting as the opponent with nothing to lose.

It’s rather sardonic to consider that these men who believe they have nothing to lose in restricting women’s rights are pretty much always the same ones who complain bitterly about biases towards women in divorce and child custody cases, men having to shoulder the bulk of the financial burdens of society, inequality in child support cases, female rapists getting lighter sentences, etc.

In other words they still haven't figured out what’s hitting them in the back of the noggin every time they throw the boomerang.

We’re not doing asexual reproduction here. Whatever happened to “It takes two to tango?” And WHY do people think that slamming one side of the gender binary isn't going to affect the other?

While it’s true that biology has a massively lopsided way of doing things when it comes to mammalian reproduction, that’s what we've got to work with.  Neither man nor woman got a choice in that matter. I’m quite certain otherwise that men would be choosing to get pregnant with regularity in the world, especially in poorer countries where children are still critical economic assets as born labor.  

This macro popped up on a news feed of mine yesterday, so I decided to use it as article fodder. Borrowing the list illustrated, I'm going to show you how the oppression of women's reproductive rights has destroyed men's reproductive rights as well.

1. Preventing access to birth control options for women means preventing birth control options for men.

Women have spermicides, condoms, diaphragms, pills, shots, IUD's, implants, rings, rhythm method, Essure, Tubal Ligation, hysterectomy, and abortion.

Men have spermicides, condoms, vasectomies, and testicle removal.

2. Excusing the rapists of women automatically excuses the rapists of men.

Rapists are sexually oriented on power and control, not on gender like a normal person. If you can hold someone down physically, emotionally, mentally, and/or legally, you can rape them. It's that simple.

This is why when men are sexually assaulted, it usually happens when they are still little boys.

But men are certainly not immune.

When you use the 'boys will be boys' excuse, you're also saying "girls will be girls." The attitude that a person is bound instinctively so fully by their gender—so as to be completely untrainable—is the same attitude assumes that girls don't/can't rape a boy.

Accordingly, female rapists are far less likely than males to ever see jail time unless they get caught with outrageously stupid and blatantly obvious evidence against them like phone sexts, child porn pictures, or babies.

This is why you never excuse rape from anybody for ANY reason.  

3 and 4. Stigma doesn't discriminate.

Female rape victims are often ignored, shunned, blamed, and stigmatized.

Male rape victims are often ignored, shunned, blamed, stigmatized, PLUS face disbelief that it's physically possible to rape them, PLUS the fact that it's not "manly" to complain about "getting sex" while ignoring the fact that it's not sex, it's a brutal violation of the body involving the genitals, PLUS being even less likely to ever see prosecution happen to their attackers, especially if they were attacked by another man because of the stigma of being gay.

Again, most men who have suffered from sexual assaults in their lifetimes did so as boys. Since when is it EVER considered acceptable to ignore, shun, blame, stigmatize a CHILD? When is it EVER acceptable to tell a little boy that they are not only essentially scum for being raped, he gets the added shame of failing his entire gender by being, "weaker than a girl?"

6 and 7.  When women are uneducated and unable to get jobs, it pretty much locks men into being forced to work themselves to death providing for everybody.

I've never met a man with a working wife and shared bills who did not appreciate her income.

8. No paid maternity leave for women means loss of income along with loss of sleep for men.

How is this fair to either mothers or fathers?

Is it fair that new fathers are denied that critical bonding time with their newborns?
We’re not living in the Victorian age anymore, folks. We've finally afforded ourselves the luxury of being able to choose what’s best for our individual families. Men can finally be stay-at-home dads if they want to.

Oh. Wait. No they can’t. Because not only do the vast majority of women not have maternity leave benefits at ALL from their jobs, even if they do, it’s a moot point because it applies only to women. There is no such thing as paternity leave except if you are lucky enough to work for a very enlightened company.

The prevailing societal attitude is that men and fathers are expendable and unimportant.

9 - 14. More of the same.

The GOP would really love nothing more than to keep you chasing the red herring that feminism is the enemy* and the cause of all of this, but the facts are sitting in your bills, men.

You have less money in your wallets, less say in your children's lives, less say in whether or not you want to be a parent, less leeway in court, and less ability to be there for your loved ones. You're getting ripped off and you cannot afford to pretend that women's rights are not the equal partner of men's rights any longer.

Reproductive rights are OUR rights.

*Note: I'm fully aware there are unscrupulous feminists who want punishment and elitism, not equality. I do not subscribe to that line of thinking, and I do not support anybody who does. I plan to write an article/rant about it, but for the sake of not bombing this article with killer tangents, I've deliberately made the choice not to go into it at this time. Thank you for your time.

Originally posted to Light Living on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM PST.

Also republished by Pro Choice, Abortion, Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism, and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yet again a lot of food for thought. (10+ / 0-)

    I think a lot of people don't appreciate the impact of points 2 through 4 especially.

  •  Interesting post (21+ / 0-)

    There's another aspect you might consider -- the way those who seek to impose male dominance justify it thru religion. More to the point fundamentalist religion. You'll hear them rant and rave in this country about sharia while happily imposing virtually the same requirements here. And those restrictions don't just affect women. Everyone loses in a theocracy. Well, except those rare few at the top of the theocratic power structure.

    Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

    by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:51:13 PM PST

    •  Bingo. (11+ / 0-)

      Abortion isn't even mentioned anywhere in the Bible. It DID exist back then, and so did infanticide. It wasn't worth bringing up in a holy book though because it was the realm of "women's stuff."  

      Or if it was, that chapter and verse is long gone along with all the other bits and pieces that were unceremoniously tossed aside by the countless editors through the ages.

      So the "fundamental" the fundamentalists have built all their precious religious beliefs surrounding abortion on nothing but man-made crapola.

      Baby murder on the other hand is found multiple times through the Bible.

      The irony of that is so bittersweet, it'd be great for baking cookies with.

      "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

      by LoriRose on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 02:15:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, check out Numbers 5:11-31... (7+ / 0-)

        Sure sounds like abortion to me. The irony here is even greater than your citation of biblical baby murders as this is a description of the legal process a jealous husband goes through with the priest when he suspects his wife of infidelity.

        He takes her to the priest with his jealous accusation. The priest concocts a potion, the "water of bitterness" which the wife is forced to drink.

        So here's the wording in the NRSV, 5:27: this potion "shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop..."

        The implication is that if she's been unfaithful, she is also rendered infertile; if she has not been unfaithful,
        "then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children."

        Not a deliberate abortion? I would love to discuss this passage with any serious student of the bible and see how they wiggle out of what seems so obvious.

        There is no worse enemy of God and Man than zeal armed with power and guided by a feeble intellect... --William James

        by oslyn7 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:21:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  this is excellent! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiveroftheWest
        The irony of that is so bittersweet, it'd be great for baking cookies with.
    •  Evangelical Religions (5+ / 0-)

      I think the effect of Evangelical religions is huge.  I know many Evangelical women and they are perfectly happy with their place in life.  They take care of the house and children and their husbands support and protect the family.  They do not have much in the way of independent thought and they parrot whatever they hear from their pastors and other Evangelicals.  They are my neighbors and part of my family.  They believe things that are unscientific and untrue.  Their eyes glaze over when I try gently to correct their beliefs -- I am a chemist.  They are not the majority of women but there are many many of them and there are enough of them to sway elections when they vote with their men.  

      These Evangelical preachers hurt this country.  They have meetings about every initiative progressives champion - I know my neighbor puts little fliers in my mailbox inviting me to attend hand I have attended a couple times. Technically the Pastors are not the ones conducting the meetings - the deacons are and the meetings are held in the churches just after services and before the pot luck.  The Pastors smile and look on at their congregations - adults and children - as the brainwashing takes place.  The live band tones it down until after the message has been sent and then the volume goes up and the party begins.  The church I visited with my neighbor packs in excess of 3000 people into it every Sunday.  They have Ministries for the children and the women and the men and creative arts.  And since technically the church is not advocating politically they do not pay taxes.  

      •  So, it's dangerous to comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cv lurking gf

        sometimes on an issue as charged as this, but...

        You say:

        I know many Evangelical women and they are perfectly happy with their place in life.  They take care of the house and children and their husbands support and protect the family.
        Your subsequent comments paint your "neighbors and family" as docile, servile idiots, apparently incapable of extended independent thought, who are in desperate need of your "gentle correction" to their "beliefs", even though their "eyes glaze" in response.

        It seems to me that their being "perfectly happy" is prima facie evidence that they have come to grips with the reality of sexism and gender oppression within our patriarchal society through a strategy that provides them significant benefit within the system. They act with agency, exhibit competency within a particular vocational expression that seems to bring them satisfaction and is apparently sufficiently compensated to provide for their care. That they are participating in their exploitation does not seem to be an issue for them.

        You may not like it, God knows I don't, but if you're inclined to defend your freedom from being bound by their standards, then you have to defend their freedom not to be bound by yours.

        The weight of oppression in this country is heavy on women, and people of color, and any group that can be, and has been, overpowered and marginalized. Educate all you want about the realities of inequality, empower your neighbors and family members to imagine a more just society, help the women and men around you to recognize the social structures of injustice that limit their options, poison their relationships, and diminish their thriving. It seems to me that this is a noble and worthy undertaking.

        But please, don't start this process from a place where you are the keeper of the sacred scientific truth (ordained a chemist!) who deigns to share wisdom with the unenlightened as to their social status and superstitions.

        Make your case, then let them choose; start conversations, suggest questions, empower them. In fact, if you are in authentic relationship (in which both parties are valued) with these folks, then your way of living in relationship is the best testimony, the best "case" for your argument of a better way of being in the world than their church community has constructed. If all you have to offer is judgment, I'm betting they can find that on Sunday.

        P.S. I don't know if you are a man or a woman, but in the interest of disclosure, I should tell you that I am a white, male, heterosexual, progressive, pastor in an Evangelical tradition. If you are for the thriving of humanity and the health of the whole world, then I am on your side.

        Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. ~ Romans 12:21

        by Mickquinas on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:33:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reply (5+ / 0-)

          Let's see -- a couple of examples. When my niece married I was troubled that she had to promise to love , follow and obey her husband.  He had to promise to love her. After a couple of years when he started beating on her she went to the church for counseling. They told her to love, follow and obey.  They told him to love her. After a couple more years of the same she divorced him.  You see she had lived through the same thing when she watched her father, my brother, beat on her mother and she decided she would not live that way. She is a thinking woman.

          My neighbor was out at the mailbox talking to 3 elderly women in the nearby townhouse unit.  She was telling them that the vinyl siding on their homes was highly flammable.  See she lives in a wooden sided house down the road. She invited then to go to church where for some god forsaken reason she had learned it was better to live in a wooden house than a vinyl house and there they would explain it all to them. I told her and them that the ignition point via open flame of vinyl siding is 200 degrees higher than that of wood and therefore they should not worry about the safety of their homes.  What a contrived way to get someone to go to her church.

          I salute you that you are for the thriving of humanity and the health of the whole world as am I and I am a white, heterosexual, 70 year old, progressive woman.  

  •  This carries over into domestic violence as well. (12+ / 0-)

    Men are much less likely to be believed when they report being victims of any sort of domestic violence, including sexual assault, whether they're gay or straight. If they're gay, there's the stigma associated in the eyes of the law with being gay, even if the man himself is openly and proudly gay. And if he's straight, there's the disbelief that he could be attacked by a woman. While most victims of domestic violence are women (says the woman who spent nearly 15 years in a relationship, most of it a marriage, with lots and lots of domestic violence by him at me), there are men who suffer from this as well and they are disbelieved and scorned. I think this is a result of the attack on reproductive rights; it's a tangent, but a seriously related one.

    •  Absolutely. Men are victimized in.... (9+ / 0-)

      ...every single topic that concerns women's rights today.
      I've been focusing on rape and sex (it's something I feel confident writing about since I've been an activist in it for a long time) but everything I'm saying pretty much applies to any social injustice topic you can pick.

      For example, I'll borrow what you were saying about domestic violence. Men tend to (not always) have less issues when it comes to getting up enough money to fund leaving an abusive partner than women do, but women have an easier time finding shelter for them and their children where they will be protected physically. There is only one men's DV shelter in the entire united states.

      What we have to do first as a society is stop blaming and polarizing the sexes, work harder to destroy the "gender binary" myths, start funding research into men's issues so we can get some more accurate numbers, and THEN we can start tailoring things in respect to the different gender cultures to meet somewhere in the middle.

      The first step is going to be dismantling this "Us vs. Them" mentality between the sexes and start directing it appropriately as "We the People vs. Them The Government."

      "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

      by LoriRose on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 04:43:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not People vs. Government (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiveroftheWest, NinetyWt, Paragryne

        "We the people" should be the government. We are in a struggle against a very few people who a spending vast sums of money to prevent our American experiment in representative self-government from succeeding. They are trying to remove the "common" from our political commonwealth.

        Everything that divides us into camps and tribes, such as gender, race, ability, orientation, age, or even the genre of our music is becoming less and less important in light of the distinction between the "haves" and the "have-nots". It is becoming a question of life and death for both men and women. It is made manifest in attacks on all our rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, labor rights, etc.

        The struggle is to see whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all persons are created equal can continue to endure in the face of the injustice of so great an inequity as currently confronts us.

        In the state of Virginia this month, the outcome of one election determined control of the State Senate. That election was decided by a margin of eleven votes. Eleven.

        As hard as some folks are working to obstruct and destroy our democratic system, every vote that can be cast still counts, these days, more than ever, and folks with a willingness and a commitment to serve the best interests of ALL their constituents (not just their corporate sponsors) are desperately needed.

        We the People need to become We the Government, of the People, for the People, and by the People.

        Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. ~ Romans 12:21

        by Mickquinas on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:55:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Republican boomerang strategy (8+ / 0-)

    "In other words they still haven't figured out what’s hitting them in the back of the noggin every time they throw the boomerang." It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculously harmful.

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 05:57:08 PM PST

  •  brave new punitive probes (4+ / 0-)

    Does anybody really think that the new punitive vaginal ultrasound probes will stop there?

    If the courts hold these up, just wait for the pear of anguish.

  •  I have always maintained (6+ / 0-)

    that men have the same interest in birth control as women. I don't know a single man that wants an unplanned child, and especially so when he is not married to the mother.

    •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest

      That you do not personally know men like that means they don't exist?

      Are you being purposely naive?

      There are millions of men fathering babies in this country every year who don't give a shit about the consequences.

      70% of births in the African American community are born out of wedlock.  Clearly, you are missing something.

      •  Like the 64% of births to white women aged 20-24 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Liberal Thinking

        that are to unmarried women it's a statistic without context. Nice way to turn into a slam against the AA community though. Did you get that "nugget" from your frequent hours listening to Rush or Glenn?

        Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

        by ontheleftcoast on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:17:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  53.8% actually - from the CDC (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Thinking, Pandoras Box

          I don't listen to Glenn but I do listen to Rush once in a while on my lunch for a laugh.

          But, no I didn't get those stats from some right-wing source.  I got them from the CDC.

          Table 15. Births and birth rates for unmarried women, by age, race

          Page 43..

          For all ages:
          White               29%
          Black               72%
          American Indian     66%
          Asian               17%
          Hispanic            53%

          Ages 20-24:
          White               54%
          Black               88%
          American Indian     75%
          Asian               44%
          Hispanic            66%

          Now, they do not correlate these numbers with the number who are unmarried but cohabiting, which might apply better to this discussion about men not wanting an unplanned child.

          So, where the heck did you get your stats?

          •  Same place, but I apparently misread/typed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JJ In Illinois, sethtriggs

            the stat incorrectly. I pulled up the "All Races" column instead of the white's column.

            Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

            by ontheleftcoast on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 08:57:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  And a good many women (5+ / 0-)

        are equally irresponsible. But before blaming these people, let's at least educate them about safe sex and provide the means to avoid unplanned babies. That would help a good deal.

      •  That's Different From Wanting Them (7+ / 0-)

        I doubt very much that these men want the unplanned pregnancies. That's entirely different from being callous louts that don't care about the consequences.

        Also, just because a child is born out of "wedlock" (I love that term because it's so descriptive) doesn't mean that the parents don't care about the consequences. I think we've reached the point where about half the kids in the U.S. are born to technically single parents. This says little about how much people care about consequences. It speaks volumes about what the public thinks of marriage.

        In any case the way to deal with this is by making contraception and abortion widely available and affordable. Abortion should be totally free to the women for the first trimester. Congress should fully fund abortions for anyone that wants one in the first part of pregnancy. That's good public policy. The only reason we don't see that is because there's a faux political movement to stop any abortion at any cost.

        •  Unmarried is probably the better term (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RiveroftheWest, Liberal Thinking

          And, yes, the trend has been toward couples having babies without marriage.

          But I was responding to what I thought was a somewhat outrageous statement:

          I have always maintained that men have the same interest in birth control as women. I don't know a single man that wants an unplanned child, and especially so when he is not married to the mother.
          Surely there are lots of men as concerned about pregnancy as women.. that's a given.

          But, there are also lots of male sex partners who simply do not care and do not stay in the baby's life for financial or emotional support.  In many cases, that is simply left up to the woman - although that number is hard to quantify from the available statistics.

  •  Equal pay means more open pay information. (9+ / 0-)

    The only one who wins with secret pay is the company. The federal government has over 2 million examples of publicly disclosing pay. Most if not all local and state governments do the same. The only reason for pay to be secret is so the employee doesn't know how badly he/she is being robbed.

  •  And one more (11+ / 0-)

    the reproductive rights of women are the reproductive rights of our wives, daughters, girlfriends, friends, co-workers, fellow Americans.  Damn straight it affects us all.

  •  Rights (7+ / 0-)

    You're right that men are also hurt by the Republican platform. But I think it goes beyond that. I don't think they are attacking women, specifically. They are waging war on freedom, and women are collateral damage in that war. My point is:

    If I can define how you do and experience sex, then I've got a deep probe into your mind. I rule your mind and I rule your body.
    This is about power. Abortion is only a political issue because there's money in it. These issues are about creating more money for the people with money.

    Take a look at the list on the macro. What's the point of this list?

    * Prevent access to birth control.
    * Promote rape.
    * Restrict access to abortion.
    * Restrict education for women and girls.
    * Pay women less than men.
    * Attack feminists.

    The point is to keep women powerless and generate as many children as possible. The point is to expand population, especially the population of workers. The point is to keep women at home where they are dependent on men and are focused on raising kids.

    In other words, it's a recipe for growing population as quickly as possible. Why would the rich and powerful want to expand population?

    The reason is because more humans mean more consumers (higher revenues) and more workers (lower wages, i.e., lower costs). Higher revenues plus lower costs equal higher profits.

    This is why these people want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. It generates babies. And babies are profitable.

    We have to understand the underlying dynamics of this. We need to understand the economics. This isn't about your body. Your body is just in the way of their profits. If you want to defend it, you have to do all you can to expose their purpose and free people's minds.

    •  Recently, wasn't there a Congressman (4+ / 0-)

      who claimed that making abortion illegal would be good for the economy?  Since he was a Republican, how he reached this conclusion was no doubt devoid of any basic logic, but, it's still the Republicans tipping their hand about the real reason for restrictions on abortion and BC.  They need plentiful bodies to do work cheaply and to provide cannon fodder for the military.  The wealthy elites are (mostly) smart enough not to admit that openly, but the Tea Partiers and their minions are not.

      •  yep - one of his points was a greater (3+ / 0-)

        demand for strollers!  sheesh

      •  He advocated making more consumers. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Liberal Thinking
      •  Birth rates do correspond (0+ / 0-)

        to higher economic growth rates in the near future.

        Thats not controversial, thats economics.

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          Families of ten children are more prosperous than families with two children?  High birth rates have lifted poor countries out of poverty and low birth rates have put wealthy countries into poverty?

          •  Yes, and half cited documents (0+ / 0-)

            http://online.wsj.com/...

            For a given nation say the U.S. If our birth rate increased so would our GDP growth rate. Its rather logical, more people, more workers.

            However if you move from nationa A to nation B higher birth rates correlates to lower gdp/population.  

            IE from the U.S. to Mexico.
            "
            High birth rates have lifted poor countries out of poverty and low birth rates have put wealthy countries into poverty?"

            a)yes. China
            b)yes. Japan.  

            Its a slow process but exactly that is what is happening.

            China is running into a problem now. Its birth rate is not high enough to sustain its economic growth.

            Sorry im too sleepy to cite these sources but you can fidn them without too much trouble.

            •  More workers does not equal more (0+ / 0-)

              prosperity.  Especially as the demand for labor due to automation goes down.  It does make the supply of labor higher, thus keeping labor from demanding higher wages.  You can't say that with outsourcing (i.e., increasing the labor supply by tapping into new labor markets) and automation, wages have increased.  They either flattened or declined in real terms since the 1980s.  A few people have become very rich, but the vast majority have stayed the same or lost ground.

              It seems to me that China instituted a one-child policy back in the early 1980s, before their economic boom began.  As far as Japan is concerned, there are many other factors in the way they run their economy that may have just as much or more impact on their economy than low birth rate does.

              And please explain how having a high birth rate has helped African countries, including those in the Middle East to prosperity?

              •  gdp growth != prosperity. (0+ / 0-)

                China's gdp growth is a direct result of its large number of people. Do you seriously question that?

                Japan's own government and numerous  numerous    economist cite Japans birth rates and poplation growth rates as a ground shakeing problem for the nation.

                As for the poor of the poor.

                Lower birth rates would result in even lower GDP's

                Its simple, more workers = more work.

                •  China had nearly as many people in the 1960s (0+ / 0-)

                  and the 1970s as they do now, and their economy was terrible.  Europe has had either zero or declining population in most countries since World War II and they have the highest standard of living in the world.  

                  In poor countries, high birth rates impoverish families, and the first thing that happens in any country with sustained rising incomes is a drop in family size.

                  Uncontrolled childbirth = poverty.

                  •  You do realize that europe (0+ / 0-)

                    in general has TINY TINY TINY, world class tiny GDP growth rates.

                    You just cited an example which supports my point.

                    Truth be told, you are not even arguing against what I am saying. Unfortunately it seems like you think you are.

                    You at best are arguing that higher population growth rates, lead to lower GDP per person.  That is irrelevant to economic idea that generally increase birth rates lead to higher GDP growth rate.

                    Here is a quick link which will help educate you on the the difference.

                    http://marginalrevolution.com/...

    •  You misread rich and powerful (0+ / 0-)

      For societal relics of a chaotic past/religious individuals.

      Much of our social structure was developed during periods when the human species' survival was not guaranteed.

      "In other words, it's a recipe for growing population as quickly as possible. Why would the rich and powerful want to expand population?"

      Many social structures, particular religious ones, evolved to do exactly as you state. To expand the population as quickly as possible.

      This had value to society in a distant past.  Unfortunately it takes time for humans to adapt.  As example we in the west need to actively try and stay in shape.

      If human society could evolve quickly, neither of these situations would still be in place.

  •  Girls will be girls? (3+ / 0-)

    First of all, who ever said that? I understand the desire to reduce "gender binary" thinking, but that simply isn't a common philosophy - at least not in the way you're using it, to say that girls can also rape boys. In order to discuss rape and sexual assault rationally, there is no way to excuse certain binary realities - such as the fact that men are so much larger and stronger than women.

    In fact, you say as much right here: "If you can hold someone down physically, emotionally, mentally, and/or legally, you can rape them. It's that simple."

    The strength differential between men and women is THE reason sexual assault and domestic violence have different paradigms for the two genders. I get what you're trying to say, but ignoring this irrefutable biological fact only enables the rape apologists that I've run into on the internet - and they are legion.

    •  It's a Point (3+ / 0-)

      I agree that there's a huge discrepancy. But I like that LoriRose took the time to refute each point. I don't think that denies that the violence against women is way out of proportion to the violence in the other direction. (In any case, it's the totality of the thing that makes me cringe.)

      The rhetoric we get from the other side is extreme. They want to stamp out all abortions, even ones that are only technically abortions because a fertilized egg doesn't get implanted. It's crazy talk.

      I think we need to have our own "extreme", but defensible, positions. The position that Republican attacks on women's reproductive rights is also an attack on the rights of men isn't all that extreme, and it is certainly defensible.

    •  I think you misunderstood a little.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, RiveroftheWest

      I was talking about societal attitudes. Nobody has to say "Girls Will Be Girls" and make it an idiom for them to believe certain things about girls.

      Such as females don't rape or can't rape a man, or beat up a man without the man being pathetically weak.

      "I want people to understand that it's not about how physically strong you are," he says. "We [men] are conditioned to believe that we cannot be victimized in such a way." ~ James Landrith, rape survivor

      This is an extremely important point: Most rapes don't use physical force or violence. Rapists by majority use intimidation, blackmail, and gaslighting.

      Rapists don't want to deal with victims they think are going to put up a fight, even if they are bigger and stronger than them. They're more likely to threaten to kill your husband or tell your boss, or tell you all about what will happen if you try to fight in order to get you to give up and go along with it. Or they watch and either try to make you too inebriated or totally unconscious to fight.

      Strength differences are really not as big a factor in rape as society tends to think it is.

      "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

      by LoriRose on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:07:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Point #1 is slightly incomplete (7+ / 0-)

    The breakdown of who uses various forms of birth control is valid. However it misses an overlooked fact that actually strengthens your overall 'spitting in the wind' argument.

    It's actually a bit of a pet peeve of mine, not just in the MSM coverage of contraception access.

    Within the straight jacket of modern employer based healthcare it is almost always more practical for a married couple to get their coverage paid for by one of the earners in the relationship, even if both have full time jobs. In my case my wife is covered in 'my' plan. When there are attempts to curtail the care and/or drugs my wife has access to, it's actually 'my' plan that is being restricted. Besides, it's we who are using birth control, even if she takes the pill.

    One example of my beef with the coverage of this is the current right wing attempts to deny birth control coverage. It's nearly always portrayed thus: a woman may be forced to justify her use if the pill to her employer, to make certain it is for health reasons, not birth control.

    Hey wait a minute!! In an awful lot of cases it's the man that will get the birth control 3rd degree from the boss. A lot of those employees at businesses like Hobby Lobby are men who provide the health care access for their wives and families.

    The way these things usually get portrayed alienate many men from the reality that they are the ones who actually have insurance coverage for the 'ladies stuff'. I wouldn't be surprised if there were men right now that work for Hobby Lobby that tune out the whole debate because "it only affects them."

    It's absolutely a restriction on women AND men's freedom. Most men just don't ever see it portrayed that way.

    •  A Very Good Point (5+ / 0-)

      You are totally correct. It's a restriction on the people having sex, not just the women. And that's presuming it's even for sex, and not for health reasons.

      The other thing that MSM coverage fails to say is that healthcare coverage is employee compensation. It belongs to the employee, not the employer. When the transaction happens, ownership passes from the employer to the employee.

      There is therefore no basis for the employer determining what kind of coverage the employee gets. This applies to all employers, even religious employers.

      It's as if they believe that the employer could hand you a hundred dollars for your work and then say, "Oh, BTW, you can't spend that on a vacation. You have to spend it on food. I'm not paying you to go on vacation, only to eat. So, make sure you don't spend that on a trip to Florida [name your location], because that's not what I'm compensating you for."

      It's madness, and another reason we need publicly-funded healthcare.

    •  Yes! Thank You! (3+ / 0-)

      You are totally correct, and I appreciate that you brought this up.

      There are a lot of things I can't put in my articles because of the sheer number of tangents that are so easy for me to go off on. So I appreciate that you did it for me and are engaging in this.

      Insurance issues and discrepancies between men and women are a HUGE topic right now.

      In fact, I'm heading down to Olympia on Monday with Planned Parenthood to show support for and discuss with legislators about the Reproductive Parity Act introduced here in WA state.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      I'll write about that and post it here afterwards. I do hope you'll come back and add your input!

      "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

      by LoriRose on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:23:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When Is That Happening? (0+ / 0-)

        The article appears to be from 2012.

        Good luck in any case. Will we see an posting about the results?

        •  Yes... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Thinking

          It's taken a few years to get to this point, which is why the article is so old.

          Monday 2/3/14 is when it's coming up in the legislature. So we're going to be addressing our legislators about getting the Reproductive Parity Act passed, and also about protecting funding for family planning.

          I've never done this before, so I'll be certain to write all about it and take pictures!

          "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

          by LoriRose on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:54:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  great diary. thanks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RiveroftheWest
  •  I can't wait for the GOP primary debates...... (3+ / 0-)

    They're going to argue over whether women should be allowed to wear pants, and ride bicycles.

  •  Interesting post. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HedwigKos, LoriRose

    "1. Preventing access to birth control options for women means preventing birth control options for men."

    The phrasing of this issue I think may be another example of message fail on the left. A problem the left has brought upon itself

    The "war on woman" while a highly motivational slogan for some, does push men to the sidelines.  The opinions, and actions of those involved does fit within that paradigm.

    The party would be much more effective with something closer to your

    "Reproductive rights are OUR rights."

    I think a more inclusive slogan AND movement paradigm which incorporates the perspective from your last line may be a bit more effective in reaching some audiences.

    •  Yup! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs

      I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way!

      "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

      by LoriRose on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:10:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a brilliant diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs

    I'm not sure what else to say... great work!

    Odds and ends about life in Japan: 1971wolfie.wordpress.com

    by Hatrax on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:09:53 PM PST

  •  When women aren't equal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs

    Men have to take on more responsibility. They become locked into a narrow gender role too, not always suited to their temperament.

    Being able to be in an equal partnership is much, much better, for all concerned. Everyone can work things out more naturally, building on their individual strengths and helping each other out with their weaknesses.



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:03:20 AM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site