The NYT just published an op-ed...

[akujunkan]

...in which crypto-misogynist Caitlin Flanagan once again proves her suck.

I won't post the entire piece, because I really don't want to do that to my poor lj; suffice to say Flanagan is once again arguing that, unlike their male peers, young women need to be "protected" by society due to their inherent biological "weaknesses:"

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

It's called informed use of birth control, you stupid bint.

And you're either disengenuous or an utter idiot for suggesting that it's not the most viable answer.


That will be all.

Comments

Uhh..... Yeah.

[bran420-7.livejournal.com]

I won't read the whole story, since I have enough things to be angry about without giving myself another idiot to curse. My one question would be... Since when have boys EVER been the ones responsible for protecting our chastity? I believe that IS what she is implying. Am I correct?

Re: Uhh..... Yeah.

[akujunkan.livejournal.com]

No, what she's inmplying is that because women are the ones who are responsible for protecting our chastity, we should be kept isolated at home, while boys go out and have careers and social lives, and recreational sex, and other fun stuff.

And yes, Flannagan does have a career, and presumably a social life, and maybe even recreation sex, which makes her a HY-PO-CRITE.

[metal-dog5.livejournal.com]

I'm equally offended by her pro-life abortion spiel. As much as she's entitled to her opinion about abortion, this blatantly biased crap shits me off no end. To say that all women would react the same way to abortion is utter bullshit. I know plenty who haven't thought twice about going through the procedure, nor have they regretted the decision to abort.

Also here's a thought - girls are far less likely to become pregnant if young teens have a proper sex education class that isn't only about abstinence. Did I ever tell you the story about a boyfriend of mine who thought you needed to put the condom on after sex?



Pregnancy robs a teenager of her girlhood. This stark fact is one reason girls used to be so carefully guarded and protected — in a system that at once limited their horizons and safeguarded them from devastating consequences.

Wait, what? NO! That's not the reason. It had more to do with her worth for the dowry payment, not having the family lose face if she wasn't 'pure', and nothing at all to do with protecting her for her sake.

[akujunkan.livejournal.com]

To say that all women would react the same way to abortion is utter bullshit. I know plenty who haven't thought twice about going through the procedure, nor have they regretted the decision to abort.

To say nothing of the women who had the abortion out of concern for their existing offspring (http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/79). Indeed, one of my most vivid memories is of a Georgian professor I had, who thought Americans were absolutely fuckwitted for their insistence that it's better to bring babies they're unable to care for into the world instead of humanely terminating the pregnancy when the "baby" in question is still just a clump of cells.

Also here's a thought - girls are far less likely to become pregnant if young teens have a proper sex education class that isn't only about abstinence. Did I ever tell you the story about a boyfriend of mine who thought you needed to put the condom on after sex?

Did I ever tell you about any of the stories I have from my years of subjection to abstinence only education? Because if not, boy howdy...

Wait, what? NO! That's not the reason. It had more to do with her worth for the dowry payment, not having the family lose face if she wasn't 'pure', and nothing at all to do with protecting her for her sake.

Yes, yes, and YES. One thinks she really needs to read herself some Stephanie Coontz (http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/).