Feminism and Intersectionality

Yesterday, I wrote about Patricia Arquette’s speech. Afterwards, I looked to see what others were saying about the subject on WordPress. (Instead of youtube comments which are just painful).

What concerns I saw most of was intersectionality.

 I thought I wrote about this at another time, but I can’t seem to find the post. Maybe I did, maybe I didn’t. Either way, I’m revisiting the conversation under the subject of her speech.

Intersectionality comes up as incorrect, but it is a word.

It’s a word that adds a whole new factor to the feminist conversation.

Intersectionality is defined by Wikipedia as “the study of intersections between forms or systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination.”

It means that you do not fit into one of the latter categories because of one piece of your being.

You can be black and be the president.

You can be a woman and have a successful business.

You can be poor and rise up to the middle class by the time you’re twenty-five.

There are success stories and those are awesome, but they typically do not contain much intersectionality.

When I hear the “I’m not a feminist because my aunt owns her own business and got it by myself,” I usually ask ‘how?’

Not in the way of it’s a statistical improbability, but in the way of what type of family did she come from? What was her educational background? What race is she? What religion does she practice? Where is she geographically located? Was she born in the United States?

These are all contributing factors to having success or to not having success. This is why you hear white guys complaining that women aren’t oppressed because she makes a lot of money and he doesn’t. Typically, intersectionality isn’t being used. (Or there’s just an assumption of needing a hand-out.)

Intersectionality also adds to the problems of defining oneself as a feminist. Typically, a person who believes in intersectionality and feminism has a hard time in those waters.

I support equal rights whether that be gender, sexuality, race, or religion.

I name myself a feminist first because I’m defined as a woman.

I have a lot more bits of myself that are in a more ‘dominant’ role. I’m white. I’m in a heterosexual relationship. I’m a Christian. I came from a family that was lower middle class (maybe even lower), but I received a good education and have graduated from college.

I’m less oppressed than I am in a dominating class.

This is where people become angry about so-called ‘first world feminism.’ Women in the United States seem to be whining when most of them have a lot more than other countries.

I’m going to talk more about comparisons in a later post, but just because you have successes doesn’t mean you shouldn’t support those who don’t.

I don’t think it’s fair that women are typically seen as more passive, a follower, in need of less money, and are shoved to caretaker jobs that are not paid well.

This doesn’t mean I do not support other causes and in many cases, I almost support them more, it’s just that I can speak for women. I can connect with other women more than I can in any other activist group because I am a woman.

Feminism gets tricky in here. This doesn’t mean all women have to be white and middle class. This is actually a problem. It’s hard to find a space if you’re a woman and don’t fit into these parameters and it sucks.

If you’re black and say you support feminism, what does that mean? Does that mean you think your rights as a person of the black community is less than your rights as a woman?

No!

What it means is that terminology is hard and our society is based on categorizing. We want somebody to define themselves as one thing. We hate intersectionality as a whole because it’s the interplay of many categories and some that cannot be seen immediately.

IT ENRAGES US.

So keep doing it.

I define myself as a feminist. But in my case, that includes equal rights entirely. I will go on a march with anybody, but I will make sure to speak up for my experiences and make sure those who do not get their voices heard are able to speak up for themselves.

Do I wish that Arquette had thrown out that intersectionality word?

Yes.

Do I understand that she was in a limited time frame and might not have had the time to do it?

Once again, yes.

There are strides that we still need to take and we should never start criticizing because there’s always more work to be done. I hope that other people see that she left out a critical part, but are also happy that she said something. Maybe it wasn’t everything, but steps in the right direction will make a change.

We can hope that another celebrity will jump on this and add more to the conversation.

Advertisements

Some Awesome Things We Saw at The Oscars

I don’t typically watch The Oscars. It’s not that I don’t care nor is it because I boycotted it.

#OscarssoWhite was trending and let me tell you, I think it is important. I’m sure many have seen this around the internet as The Oscars came closer.

It’s important. It really is and I saw some of those problems come to light last night. Notably, the foreign winners who were rushed off stage much faster than the American ones. Bravo to Pawel Pawlikowski for talking through the music that tried to rush him off stage. He kept going and we were loving it.

Neil Patrick Harris didn’t quite do the best as an Oscars host, but in my experience, nobody really does. It’s hard to grab a hold of that crowd. Some of his jokes were a little off color. I thought that he brought attention to the white problem in the Oscars. Maybe he was playing it down by joking, but it’s better to call that out even if the crowd wasn’t accepting it.

Who doesn’t like a good song number? And of course, Anna.

Now, let’s get to the good stuff.

The SPEECHES!

This right here is why I’m glad I didn’t boycott the Oscars. I want to hear what these stars have to say. The Academy has serious problems and it is amazing when their recipients are giving out speeches that empower all sorts of different people.

Attention was brought to ALS, Alzheimer’s, veterans, suicide, black rights, women’s rights, and how the country treats their immigrants.

I encourage readers to watch all the videos if  you didn’t catch them. They are well worth your time and were inspiring. I would also discourage you from reading the comments. The general rule is to not read Youtube comments, but I never can help myself. I read the one for Common and John Legend’s acceptance speech and felt sad. The fact that some people still think that saying “…be happy with how far this country  has come” will appease people is beyond me. Yes, we have a black president and yes, there are successful black people doesn’t mean we are equal. It means we’re getting closer to racial equality, but if people stop fighting, there will only be steps back.

I, of course, am going to talk about Patricia Arquette’s speech, winner of best actress in a supporting role. Here’s a video clip:

The support from the audience was fantastic, most notably Meryl Streep. What I found to be puzzling was some of the shocked faces. Happy, but shocked.

It’s crazy that saying women need equal rights can be so shocking to people. The faces were not angry, they were happy. They were only surprised that this woman would dare say it.

The argument Arquette made was perfect. “To every woman who gave birth to every citizen and taxpayer of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights.” That argument.

Right away, she slams down people who ask ‘what do women really do?’ She uses childbirth as a necessary job that women do for this country. She doesn’t argue that women work and volunteer and give back to their community (which they do), she throws out the fact that women have primary roles in childbirth and rearing. That is fantastic.

I have read the arguments against her speech and each of those would need a blog post in itself. Some I have already talked about, but most I still need to.

-The wage gap
-‘Care’ of women
-Housewifery
-Women in other countries

There are a lot more of course, but these were just some of the problems youtubers had. Unfortunately, most were complaining about ‘first world feminists’ and how they all need to die out. Once again, ignorance breeds hate. It’s unfortunate. I always wish I could argue with them, but I can’t. It’s one of those never-ending battles.

If you have any questions or would like me to comment on a specific problem the community has with feminism, please  let me know. I will not attack you, just answer with the knowledge I have.

I hope readers go and watch the other videos. They are well worth it and were beautiful. Read other blogs that focus on the discussions that those speeches started. Once again, well worth.

Off topic but go watch Lady GaGa’s performance. I was surprised and shocked at how wonderful it was.  Never knew she could actually sing.

Gillian Flynn, a Feminist

**Shouldn’t contain spoilers and if there are, they are small**

For the last four days, I rushed through Sharp Objects and Dark Places unable to put either book down. Sharp Objects captured me with the twisted mother-daughter relationship and the ending that made this a psychological thriller. Dark Places did not capture my attention as well, but I still turned the pages in a rush to see how it was going to end. I read Gone Girl in June of 2013 (thanks Goodreads!) and gave it a four star, but it probably deserved five. After finishing Sharp Objects and before I read Dark Places, I started to wonder, is Gillian Flynn a feminist?

There are a few things that led me to ask this question. I wasn’t passionate about feminism when I read Gone Girl so the review I wrote on Goodreads had not a comment about it. Now,  I am. While reading Sharp Objects, the question of Flynn’s feminist stand started to nag at me. There’s this section where Camille has a conversation with Detective Richard. She asks if an eighth grade girl had sex with four high school guys, would that count as rape. He said hell, yes. The girl is underage, the boys are around fifteen (?) and she was obviously vulnerable. Most feminists would say that this is rape and would say the guys were only out for themselves and they probably were. Camille’s response makes readers take a double take. “And sometimes drunk women aren’t raped; they just make stupid choices– and to say we deserve special treatment when we’re drunk because we’re women, to say we need to be looked after, I find offensive.”

Now that’s a statement.

Time to unravel!

When I went to India, there was a conversation of the backlash of all of the protective measurements for women to stop rape. The backlash was reinforcing the idea that women need to be protected. This is like saying women can’t go out to parties by themselves or they might get raped. Unfortunately as much as I want to say that it isn’t true, it still is. I’ve heard multiple stories. We shouldn’t say ‘why didn’t she bring a friend?’ or ‘she shouldn’t have dressed up like a slut,’ but the problem remains. It sucks and puts women in a difficult situation. It also puts men in a difficult situation. We assume that men only want sex and unfortunately, most men reinforce this idea. I’m not saying that they’re all rapists or even capable of rape, it’s just that we see comments from guys talking about how their girlfriend doesn’t give them sex or they want sex. Okay. I’m going to keep that as a mostly truth though I know it’s not always true because it could be a social construction; either way it exists.

Now to look back at that quote. The boys she was with might not have been capable of rape, but could still be fine with being a guy she had sex with. This is where an argument comes up. If she was drunk and inhibitions gone and they were drunk and she was obviously able to be taken advantage of (considering her home life), does it count as rape? When can somebody make a decision? Of course, she was thirteen and legally, it was rape. What about socially? I agree with her quote. To a point. I’m not sure, but I believe I at least planned a post where I talked about some of the ways men debase women. One of the unintentional ways is “I would never hurt a woman, she needs to be protected.” Ouch. This is a problem and it should be addressed. Women do not need to be protected. We can see this in the characters Flynn creates. You can’t argue that they need protection; if anything the men need protection. Detective Richard is more horrified by everything Camille does than any of the women. Her step-father has no clue what’s going on and is being manipulated without even knowing. Her writing begins to prove that women do not need protection.

Unfortunately, Gillian Flynn’s ideas are progressive. This is good, but it also assumes a world exists that’s out of our reach currently. Right now, we’re trying to rework the relationship between men and women. We’re trying to see people as individuals without grouping them together with similar characteristics just because of their gender. We want women who can be seen as people and not objects and men who can be seen as more than just sex seeking. Gillian Flynn is moving past this teaching men that rape is never okay and women should be able to have sex for fun to the understanding that women do not need protection and can make decisions even when drunk; that protection is not needed. This is a theory that’s difficult to wrap our heads around in a society where we’re trying to reform the idea that when drunk, it counts as rape and victim blaming is not okay. Flynn presents a new argument that is both hopeful (women not needing protection) and harmful (potential victim blaming). It’s progressive but may be too progressive in our current situation.

Gone Girl presents a female character that is more obvious than the others (save for Camille’s mom). I can’t talk much about this book without spoiling it, but the characters are both hated in the book. I asked one of my friends if he liked the movie (still haven’t seen it) and he said yes, but that the woman was a bitch and he hated her. He never said anything about hating the husband who is equally as horrible just in a different way. The husband’s behavior is acceptable in current circles. While it’s bad, we can understand it. Her behavior on the other hand isn’t. She’s called a bitch because she’s manipulative. We don’t see that often and when we do, it’s her fault. He was the one affected and his behavior was a reaction. Her’s is never accepted. She’s seen as the instigator.

Of course, Flynn does not seem to be in agreement. She creates a woman who gets back at her husband with manipulation. A woman will lose in a fist fight (in most cases) but manipulation? That’s harder to fight. People hate her, but when we examine her behavior, it makes sense. What else was she to do? Of course, she is insane. That can’t be ignored. She never tried having a conversation with him, but instead took it to the next, next, next x10 level. She’s a psychopath, but an intelligent one who examines the social contract and uses it for her own purposes. It’s twisted, yes, but it’s difficult to call Flynn a misogynist when she portrays strong women in a progressive, not backwards, way.

Gillian Flynn has said that she is a feminist. She takes assumptions about women and flips them. In Sharp Objects, the detective says the killer has to be a man because women do not kill unless it’s for revenge or from jealousy. All of the perceived notions are switched on the readers, making the writing twist our familiarity to something that we can barely recognize. I do think Flynn is asking for a world that is more progressive and radical than we are at. I’ve heard women and men say that woman shouldn’t be protected when they’re drunk, but it’s with accusatory tones and filled with excuses for behavior that they know was wrong. This type of understanding she is asking for is with respect for the doer, knowing that it was a decision that one person made and it shouldn’t be forgiven when it was her choice.

Flynn is definitely an author that feminists should keep their eyes on and people who blame the woman or say ‘she was drunk; she wanted it’ have to watch or read with more knowledge than what they currently hold. I hope to read more from her in the upcoming years.

Can Reading be Harmful?

Reading is supposed to broaden the mind. Reading allows a person to put their feet in the characters shoes and hopefully, be able to do that in real life too. There are plenty of articles about the benefits of reading fiction or why you should date somebody who reads or the ability to empathize when readers start young. What about the harm of reading? Does it exist?

In two days, Fifty Shades of Grey, the movie will be released in theaters around the United States and I’m sure the movie will be a box office hit. Those who got through the book will be excited to see their imagination blossom on screen and those who didn’t read the book (but wanted to) will only have to set aside 125 minutes of their precious time and be visually assaulted without the need to read through Ana’s eyes and will also not have to cringe every time “oh my” is used. Unless they’re going to keep that too. We can hope not.

I’m not going to try to make this a complaint about Fifty Shades because for one there are so many other blogs and forums you can read about the complaints, and two I liked it my first read through. Despite the cringe-worthy prose and complete lack of reality (you don’t have an email address but you got a job out of college being an English major? Really.) I still liked it for the simple fact that it was escapism and took roughly three days to get through the entire series. I felt no more educated by the end of it, but I also didn’t feel horrified.

I also read a lot. I’m not going on about how great I am. I read some simple books but I try to add in books that truly open my understanding of myself or the world. When reading might become harmful is when it only includes the “escapist” books.

We have all heard the arguments about Fifty Shades. “He raped her!” “She signed a consent form!” and on and on and on. My opinion is more on the fact that the whole story is so unbelievable that we shouldn’t have this argument. She’s a 22 year old virgin who managed to get a job at a publishing company (not as a receptionist) right out of college with her English degree. This does not happen. Of course, being a virgin and obviously not able to use technology (why is this a thing?), I don’t think she had enough information to give informed consent, but either way, this book is realistic enough to take seriously.

And yet….

And yet, we worry about how people are taking books like this with simplified plots and paper-thin characters. Despite readers calling it out as horrible or simply, escapism, we worry that it’s affecting our communities. It is possible for reading to be harmful.

It is one thing to simply read for escapism, but the problem comes when people who don’t read often and desire somebody like Christian Grey and even worse, want to be like Anastasia Steele (how horrible are those last names?!). This sounds a lot like victim blaming, so let me explain.

I’m not a feminist who consistently thinks women should be abstained from taking responsibility for their actions. Trust me, I think Christian is manipulative and I don’t care that he has all of these childhood issues because he should have had some of those solved before pursuing a relationship with a girl as ‘vanilla’ as Ana. Yet, I still worry that Ana, along with Bella, might be seen as role model. Girls who do not inform themselves and rely on information from the guy who’s telling them what they should be doing, who only have knowledge in cooking for their boyfriends, who never learned how to stand on their own two feet, and who only show their ability to stand up for themselves to protect their fetuses. I don’t think this is role model material and most people know this. Most.

There are those who don’t and this is a simplified example of the problems reading can bring to those who don’t read widely. What about those who only read racist stories? What about those who are only allowed to read from a strict approved book list and even though Fifty Shades would most likely not be on there, what other books are being left out?

Obviously my title was an attention grabber. I don’t think reading can be harmful because I think reading is the best thing a person can do. It’s when people read narrowly and refuse to try other books. It’s when a person disregards others comments on the book and don’t see the problems that may stem from the literature. I always try to read the reviews of books after I read them to see what people are saying. I try to make myself (and usually don’t succeed) read scholarly articles on the books I have read to see what people believe is the affect of that book on readers and society.

What book has made you question yourself? What book makes you consider censorship?

The Gender Box

Gender is a huge deal and a bigger one than people typically think. We are born with certain genitalia and that will make us who we are. Sure, you might not be athletic, but you might run a company. You might not be pretty, but you’ll be nurturing. There are expectations that stem from the genitalia we are born with and what people believe that makes us.

Many people are trying to change this, including me. I am not as involved in the transgender community as I should be, so I will not be discussing the change of gender or even gender fluidity. If you are interested in those topics, I am sure you can find bloggers who dedicate their blogs to these topics. These are super important to notice and realize. What I will be discussing though, is how gender can box us in.

I identify as a cis-female. This means I’m (mostly) straight and identify as a woman. So far, I do not subscribe to the idea that all of gender is socially constructed. I do believe for some that it is, but for me, I don’t believe it. I say ‘so far’ because in five years I might decide that gender is fully a social construction. Right now though, I believe that there are some parts of gender that are constructed, but not all of them. I’m sure many of you can argue this or point me to posts that address this situation and please do! I needed to line up some of my thoughts before I go ahead and start talking about this subject.

I am not a wonderful feminist and neither are most people. Do we even know what the perfect feminist is? I don’t think so. Since gender construction is such a difficult conversation to fully understand and grasp, I think it would be impossible. I have been hearing a lot about Roxanne Gay’s Bad Feminist and I haven’t read it yet (the library’s copy is missing!) but the idea is intriguing. I hope to find out if she addresses what is considered to be a good feminist if there even is such a thing.

Even feminism can be a box when interpreted by people who do not quite understand what feminism is or care to learn about it. Experiences are important to write about.

1) I crochet. A lot. I love amigurumi and making graphgans. It gives me something to do when I feel like watching television. A few weeks ago by boss said: “I’m surprised you do that.” Of course, I had to ask why. His response? “Because you’re all feminist.”

I was hearing the opposite of what I was fighting for. I’m a feminist because I don’t want to exist in a small box that dictates what  I have to do with my life (or well, one of the reasons). Suddenly, I was being placed in a box: the feminist box. I have no clue what I was supposed to be doing. Do you I not crochet anymore because it’s a female thing? Should I not enjoy cooking? Reading horrible romance novels? Should I stop painting my nails and liking the color pink? How would I portray myself as a feminist, I ask. If I act like a boy, I’m a boy. If I get rid of a female and a male identity, suddenly I’m in-between. I don’t consider myself a woman because I like feminine things, I consider myself a woman because I feel like one. Talking about identity or explaining identity is hard. Just as hard as it is for anybody no matter their claimed identity. You could probably talk me into believing that gender is a social construction and the only reason why I think of myself as a woman is because I’ve had these practices pressed on me. Maybe you’re right but I still like them. I started crocheting after I found feminism.

2) I put on make-up and dress up for other people.

This is a difficult one to discuss.  I fully believe that it is possible for dressing up for oneself and feeling good about the way you look and other people liking the way you look is possible. I love to wear dresses. I think they look good and I like to show skin. This is seriously a thing for me. I like to feel textures and air on my skin. I love straps on my shoulders. I also am aware that I can be attractive to other people, but to me, I’m dressing for myself and it just so happens that they look good according to the public.

Now there are times when I dress up for other people in specific. This does not happen often. I love to feel confident and comfortable. I know that if I put on a pencil skirt and heels, I will look good and probably even confident. Guess what? I don’t feel confident. I’m too tall and I am in a tight skirt. It’s not okay. My feminist side of me says “who cares?” I should act confident and pull it off, but at the same time, why should I if I don’t feel right? Same thing with make-up. I’ve had my make-up done and felt completely out of place. Other’s told me I look good, but I wiped half of it off. Overall though, I have put on nice clothes others will like and have left my make-up on because somebody thought it looked nice. I don’t do it often, but I do argue that it can be a coincidence that I happen to like wearing something another person likes me in.

There are tons of contradictions that exist. I squeal in Pitch Perfect when he finally raises his fist in the air for her. This isn’t because I think I look cute making a high pitched noise and jumping up in down, I feel like there’s a bubble that I cannot control inside of me every single time. I read coming of age YA novels and while I try to stay away from the ones that are inherently misogynist, I do sometimes like a few of them. I read Twilight (escapism!). I like it when I get hit on. I like it when my boyfriend takes care of me or buys me things. I wasn’t single through college. I shave my body because I like the feel of my skin.

These are my personal contradictions, but what I find important is to make sure I’m not being boxed in. I have examined most of these to see if they are what I actually want or if they are just constructions. I’ve found most of them are my own choice. Sure, I didn’t choose to start shaving. I had that day when I was twelve and somebody told me I looked like a monkey and my mom gave me a razor and told me good luck. Maybe I only like to shave because I know I’m supposed to and I had to get used it. Still, I like to feel smooth skin and I kind of wish males had to do it too. Contradictions exist in any following, movement, or religion. The list goes on and on but what I find important is to be critical. I don’t mean to put yourself down, but examine your life and don’t just be another happy shiny person. I’m quite the happy person. Nothing traumatic has really ever happened to me. I’m not depressed. I’m comfortable in my body. I see all of this as luck of the draw, or God, or whatever else you believe in. What’s important is to keep fighting for other people if you don’t need to fight for yourself. Don’t let people box you in because you were born with genitalia that is supposed to dictate the rest of your life. If you do like some of those gendered activities, go for it! If you have some gendered qualities, use them! There’s nothing wrong with being nurturing and persistent. Just don’t let somebody call you a pussy or bossy.

Boxes will always exist. That doesn’t mean we need to watch people be shoved into them. We might not see results in our lifetime, but hopefully it will happen eventually. So keep on being a feminist or whatever  movement you believe in and don’t forget to learn more and expand your mind.

Political Lingo and Other Things I Need to Learn

don’t understand need to learn political lingo.

Badly.

Last year if you had asked me about economics, I would tell you I knew nothing. After taking a wonderful course in feminist theory, I know a bit more and even better, I know why it’s relevant to me. I’m taking an Intro Women’s Studies class and many students do not like the discussion of the economy and doesn’t see why it’s relevant. I’m over in the corner saying “use-values people, use-values.” Of course, that doesn’t mean much until you take a class that discusses the importance of use-values, commodities, and the value of housewives. Economics doesn’t seem to relate to the women’s sphere, but boy does it.

Now to politics.

Everyone knows how politics affect them, but not many are involved. It sucks. I am not claiming innocence here. I complain so much about the world and what am I doing? Not feeling qualified to vote as if I am uneducated, un-opinionated, and am not a citizen. People who read this blog should know that I have strong opinions and yet, I did not vote.

I consistently undervalue myself and that is a huge problem. Not just because of my self-esteem, but because I am not contributing and fighting for what I want.

I have been reading Kristen Gillibrand’s book Off the Sidelines (so far, I recommend) and let me tell you, it is making me feel guilty as hell. After I didn’t vote and found out that Republicans are winning out, I was angry. The next day I opened her book and was greeted with “If you leave the decision making to others, you might not like what they do, and you will have no one to blame but yourself.”

Well shit.

This increased my anger and I questioned myself again. Why can I not follow politics? So I tried and unfortunately, I still am a bit lost. I wanted to see what bills have been passed and which ones are in the making. It’s quite confusing, but I’m working on it. It is difficult to not give up. But what I’m learning is that even if I don’t know exactly what I’m doing, I can still weigh pros and cons. If I see two people debated, I can figure out which one I’d prefer even if I don’t like every single policy they’re creating or rejecting. I like to be certain and fully confident, but I cannot. People can change their minds and they can refuse to keep to their promises.

I am still lost. I am still learning, but women fought for the right to vote and I’m doing them a great shame by not participating. We need to stop being so timid to speak up for ourselves or making a permanent decision. The vote has passed, so I can’t take that back, but let me tell you, I’m going to do what I can to let my voice be heard.

Remember Hobby Lobby? This is What We Were Afraid Of.

If you have not been on Facebook, social media, or do not pay attention to other states, you may have not heard of what people are calling the “rape insurance” act. If you have read about it, skip the next paragraph. If you haven’t, quick summary:

The law makes it so abortion is not covered by private insurance and the only exemption from this is if the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother. This is the general policy anyway, but what Michigan changed was that insurance policy does not exempt abortions from rape or incest. According to Huffington Post, it is still possible to other insurance riders in addition to your main insurance policy, but there are only four companies that offer this in the state of Michigan.

Yikes.

There are movements to include any abortions in insurance policies. It’s a debate that’s occurring currently, but it’s doubtful that it will pass anytime soon. Sterilization is covered, but abortion is not. It all has to do with the idea of abortion as being a private decision and a private consequence. I hopefully will have time to write about that soon.

Right now, an official law is in the process of being passed to make it unlawful to include abortion in private insurance policies. Do I disagree? Yes. Do I understand that it will most likely pass? Yes. Even if it does pass, I’ll be upset, but nothing compares to the act Michigan passed.

Michigan is the ninth state to pass this law; it’s beginning to spread and it needs to be stopped. Why?

People call this ‘rape insurance’ for a reason. You need a specific insurance to be covered for abortions if from rape or incest. There are many problems with this, but one of the main problems is that it assumes somebody will be able to plan to be raped and need an abortion.

A woman would need to get this insurance rider ahead of time. Most women have the mentality of “it won’t happen to me.” This isn’t a bad thing. We don’t plan for horrible events to occur in our lives. Women, most likely, wouldn’t get the plan. Now, they’ve been raped. Will they be pregnant or will they not? Of course, she could take Plan B, but what if she hasn’t accepted what happened? What if it’s repressed?

Women don’t plan to get raped and then to get pregnant. This law is moving two steps backwards. It’s not even a part of the regular expectations that I have of anti-people laws. Anti-people not anti-women. I said that correctly.

Because I know many are not sympathetic or empathetic, I’ll play the “what if it happened to your daughter/wife” game. You’re married and your wife is raped. She was walking down the street, she was in her office, or she was taking your kids to the park. Whatever. She is raped and it’s horrible and everybody has to suffer from one person’s selfish actions. A few weeks go by and she finds out she’s pregnant.

Who’s is it?

It could be yours, but with the kids and the jobs, there’s not much room for bedroom play. The rapist on the other hand, didn’t use protection and took what he wanted. Your insurance rights have been taken away. You cannot get it covered by insurance. The $500 down payment went to your kids’ clothing, field trips, laptops or to your car in disrepair. Uh-oh. Now because of this act, there is an added problem to your marriage. You’ll be raising another man’s child and not because of your wife’s adultery, but because of her choice being taken away.

I shouldn’t have to do it this way. I think people should be able to understand that there are many possibilities why a woman needs an abortion and if it’s from rape, I cannot understand why there is not full support. Yes, it will be a child, but will that child get the support and love it needs or will the mother feel some resentment because of the way he/she was conceived? It may be involuntary even, but it can happen.

For the argument of this bill, some are saying that if they don’t support it then they shouldn’t have to pay for it. If you’re pro-life then you shouldn’t be putting your tax money to abortions.

HAVE SOME CONSIDERATION.

This is not your choice. This is a choice to be made by somebody else and you have no right to take away that choice. If it’s from rape, you are further victimizing the victim.

How cruel is that?

I’m not talking about any abortion, I’m talking from rape. Stop taking rights away from people and families after they suffered from a horrible act imposed on them.

It’s unacceptable.