Wednesday

Or Maybe You Should Just Jerk Off: Saving Women's Lives One Asshole at a Time

Bernard Bellamy, a West Virginia State University student and Maryland resident, killed a D.C. woman (his girlfriend?), Valicia Andrea Demery, that was pregnant by him. He hit her with his car.

The following comment (among many others)in was made on the Washington Post. My response is in black. I'm getting so tired of this shit:

alert4jsw wrote:
This has nothing specifically to do with either "African American culture" or Prince Georges County. It happens everywhere, and far more often that we are willing to admit.

As a matter of fact, often isn't even a strong enough word to account for how much this is happening. See Justice's Posterous, Violence Against Women and Children News Central, Intimate and Domestic Violence in the News, and this map (none of which are comprehensive). The Swine Flu ain't got nothin on domestic violence homicides.

Unfortunately, it is directly related to the gains women have made with respect to control of their own bodies and childbearing. And I do NOT say this to disparage women those gains, which I fully support, but only to point out that there have been some unintended consequences that, for whatever reasons, society wishes to ignore.

Blame it on women. Take zero responsibility for the actions of men (which is why the women's movement began, and which is why it must continue). How can any commentor like this fully support women's gains while blaming the backlash on the same women?

Women now have the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or have the child, and I agree that it should be her choice and her's alone. However, while the decision to engage in sex was mutual between the woman and her partner, the decision of whether to carry the unintended pregnancy or not is entirely hers. Her "choice", to which he has no legal input, can place him in a financial straitjacket, enforced by the courts, for at least eighteen years.

Women have always had the option to choose to continue or terminate pregnancies. "Right" only has to do with government regulation of women's bodies. Furthermore, all sexual acts are not mutual, however any sexual act can result in pregnancy. In that the burden of the pregnancy lies on the mother, and that there is no physical need for the father in order to carry a fetus to term, that decision should always rest with the mother. If the mother's choice places the father in a "financial straitjacket," perhaps the father should have made this known prior to the consensual sexual act. But of course, if he's thinking with his dick, that's never going to happen.

The fact remains that unless he is mentally retarded, a man knows about the unintended consequences of sexual relations, just as well as the woman knows. Because the woman biologically is responsible for the child, in utero, in no way absolves the man of responsibility upon the birth of the child (though he should be responsible for healthcare costs during the pregnancy as well).

Should we really be surprised if some men, feeling trapped, actually do resort to what they see as their only viable option -- that of "making the problem go away?"

This isn't about surprise. This is about responsibility and choices. He chose to murder. He is a murderer that didn't want to be responsible for his child, so instead, he is responsible for the murder of a pregnant woman.

Perhaps the couple used no contraception, or perhaps they did and it failed, or perhaps she took steps to circumvent the contraceptive for reasons of her own. Regardless, the father is now in a situation over which he has absolutely no control and which will profoundly affect him for years to come.

And he should have thought about that before he laid down to have sex.

One solution would be to allow the father to legally "opt out." Just as she has the choice of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, he would have the choice of whether or not to support the child. He would be obligated to if he wished to have any legal standing as the child's parent in the future, but the court would be required to allow the man to refuse. This would, of course, entail his agreement to surrender all "parental rights" and he would have no further legal standing with regard to the child. The woman would be aware of this possibility, and would need to take it into consideration when deciding whether or not to carry the pregnancy.

He has a choice already, whether or not to have protected sex...or, better than that, whether or not to have sex. This legal proposition is a joke a best. First, on how many personal accounts and affairs can a government, that is already fucked up and overspent, intervene? Shall we all become mere properties of the state because we cannot make rational decisions for ourselves? And how many men would opt not to be involved with their children, on the basis of finances, only to return later to say that they had a "change of heart"?

I can answer that. Many.

Look at all the men who take little-to-no part in raising their children within "two parent households" and also absent father homes, who then come back after the split or after some epiphany several years later, and drag the woman through court. The legal system is a fraud and to further burden it would be preposterous.

Is this a great solution? No, and there may not be any "great" solutions to a social problem of this type. But by giving the man other legal options by making this more of a "mutual acceptance" of responsibility,it may save women's lives.

Again, the "mutual" part occurs during the agreement to engage in sexual activity. This commentor's conclusion about saving women's lives via this method is absurd. It reminds me of the traditional rape prevention directed at teaching women how not to be victims. Rapists and those with the rape mentality can stop rape.

Offer men some lotion or oil, and tissue or a towel and tell them to use their hands. That will save many lives.


In all seriousness though, please visit the National Organization of Men Against Sexism. We can't just keep teaching women.