After watching this video and doing some research on sex- selective abortion, I can't help but be reminded of topics we've touched on in class.
From what I understand, sex-selective infanticide has long been a practice of many countries of Asia and some in Africa to help “control populations”. By having more boys than girls, the amount of potential pregnant women decreases, thus the population of the nation. Additionally, in these countries, the authors commenting in the video say there is “such a demand for maternal and wifely labor...you see women getting married earlier, you see less tolerance for women who don't want to fulfill roles that are already in short supply”. It seems that males would almost want to import housewives from other locations that they know will “fulfill their roles” rather than dealing with their own female population. In this trafficking of women, those of maternal and “wifely” qualities have more value and are more of a commodity to these societies and their men. This results in men who are described as “unattached unsocialized men forming subversive secret societies or militias...” Honestly, this reminds me of an extreme example of our discussion of fraternity and sorority relationships. Wherein, the men use the women as objects to traffic around their “brotherhood”, and the women are selected in their sororities as well as by the fraternities based on their qualifications to make the males proud. The kind of selective process that goes into Greek life rushing and pledging reflects how much you are worth in their society- and if you are not good enough, apparently you are cast aside and unworthy. Especially if you are a female. On the other hand, I realize sex-selective abortion is definitely far worse of a system than campus life. Not only does it control the lives of the unborn children, but that of the mothers' who must give up their children to a “population crisis”. This also leads me to think that, if the majority of the preserved culture is male, and the males want to stay in power, all that is going to happen is this situation gets perpetuated until there has been a kind of socio-evolutionary process that ends with a culture composed of males, and maternal, wifely women who fulfill their expected roles.
--Anna Banana
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Follow up to Charmayne Brown: Earnest Apology?
I did my research project on the recent hate crime involving Charmayne Brown who was attacked by Billie Jean (B.J.) Taylor and her family. Recently, B.J. issued an apology via CNN as seen here. I personally don’t feel B.J. represents herself or her community very well. She gives no real explanation for any of the racial slurs that were spat at news reporter Charmayne Brown, nor the reason for the violence, punching, beating, and pulling on the hair that she received. B.J. claims it was basically a crime of passion, that she and her family couldn’t control themselves and that if she could, she really would take all of it back. I feel that this experience isn’t going to teach this family anything other than to be more careful next time. They basically got off scot-free owing to the lack of hate crime legislation in South Carolina. B.J. stumbles through questions asked by the reporter and only seems to make a bigger fool out of herself, saying that she never threw out a racial slur, when it seems in the video she was equally violent and livid as the other three attackers. She says the reason they didn’t attack the white news reporters was because, when told that the family did not want to talk, the other news crew “just said okay and walked off” while Charmayne Brown and Ti Barnes (her cameraman) resisted, “throwing back comments at us, that they didn’t have to leave.” Well, heaven forbid that they be told by news reporters that they were on public property and had every right to be there. The nerve of Charmayne Brown, doing her job like she did! How dare a news caster attempt to report the news. B.J. denies it being race related, but the slurs that were yelled cannot be denied, even if she says she did not partake in the name calling. Even if she wasn’t throwing out the “N word,” she sure as hell wasn’t trying to stop her family members from saying it. She is a reflection of her family, her family is a reflection of her. It’s bad enough that B.J.’s relative killed her father. Was the attack worth more disgrace to the family name?
-Scrappy
-Scrappy
Friday, August 1, 2008
To Pay or Not To Pay
While doing working on my research paper about child support, I discovered the following article:
If the parents (the two mothers) agreed that the donor would not be involved in any way, I think that should include child support. In my opinion, the biological mother should seek child support from her former partner instead of the donor.
When a gay or lesbian couple separates, does that mean that the “other” parent is not financially responsible for the children?
This situation is unfair to the donor because he is being asked to pay child support for the three children. By agreeing not to participate in the children’s lives, he relinquished any responsibility, including financial. The article does not state whether or not the other partner adopted the children. Even if she has no legal responsibility, she should have a moral obligation to the children. After all, she is their mother. Although she did not give birth to the children, she and her partner sought a donor in order for them to become parents. Does she think since the relationship has ended that she is no longer the children’s parent? When a heterosexual couple divorces or separates, the non-custodial parent is still responsible for the children. I think that this should apply to same-sex couples as well.
--Blackberry
If the parents (the two mothers) agreed that the donor would not be involved in any way, I think that should include child support. In my opinion, the biological mother should seek child support from her former partner instead of the donor.
When a gay or lesbian couple separates, does that mean that the “other” parent is not financially responsible for the children?
This situation is unfair to the donor because he is being asked to pay child support for the three children. By agreeing not to participate in the children’s lives, he relinquished any responsibility, including financial. The article does not state whether or not the other partner adopted the children. Even if she has no legal responsibility, she should have a moral obligation to the children. After all, she is their mother. Although she did not give birth to the children, she and her partner sought a donor in order for them to become parents. Does she think since the relationship has ended that she is no longer the children’s parent? When a heterosexual couple divorces or separates, the non-custodial parent is still responsible for the children. I think that this should apply to same-sex couples as well.
--Blackberry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)