So, I understand that my employer expects all computer use to be work related. I get that certain social networking sites are blocked simply because they offer the option of "chat/messaging" even though some actual "chat/messaging" programs are not blocked. I even get that some random sites I've attempted to access in the context of research are blocked because of perceived content (pornography etc.). But, why, specifically is "Sex Education" listed as a reason to block a site? If the forbidden topic were "You're at Work So You Don't Need to Be Looking this Up Here", I could understand. But to click on an article about Planned Parenthood's philanthropic work in Peru and be blocked because I might learn something about the birds and the bees (of which we have both here at my esteemed place of employ) seems ridiculous.
Of course, I also feel that it is ludicrous that certain sites are blocked because of "Gay/Lesbian Issues". What kind of crazed conservative developed this firewall? I can access the hateful, bigoted "Family Research Council", but heaven forbid I try to check out who's on the mainstage at St. Louis' Pridefest.
I just don't get it.
Showing posts with label safer sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safer sex. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Single mothers, a sign of the apocolypse?
I was reading an article in that ever favorite column of mine, Broadsheet, reviewing/reaming an article on what I've decided may be a least favorite site, Slate.com. The Slate article, . . .And Baby Makes Two, is an obscene indictment of single mothers who choose not to marry the 'baby daddy.' I wanted to post my own response to the article for those of you who may not read the Broadsheet yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vile, foul, and disgusting.
I can't believe that Emily Yoffe could write, let alone believe, the pablum that was published about single motherhood. First of all, since much of the country has escaped the era of pregnancy being more shameful than murder, the ideas this article espouses are terribly outdated. Secondly, in the United States, birth control is openly available, if not free to those who would request it.
To suggest the one responsibility a woman has is to choose only to have sex with a man who would make a good father is ludicrous. Her choices begin with contraception, followed by choice of mate and choice of sexual activity. Then, should she possibly be pregnant, many states still respect her ability to choose early contraception. And barring all other circumstances, she still has the right to decide whether to have a child at all. And these are only the choices of the woman involved. Are we truly so sexist as to reduce all men to walking sperm donors, unaware of the consequences of their actions?
Aside from the ridiculousnous Yoffe spews about pregnancy, she clearly has no perspective on the current sexual climate at all. Becoming pregnant is by no means the worst outcome from unprotected or accidentally unprotected sex. Aside from the obvious bomb of HIV/AIDS, I would argue that herpes lasts as long, or longer than the responsibilities of having a child.
And finally, For Ms. Yoffee to rant and rave about young women's lack of personal responsibility presents a sexist and bigoted perspective on sexual politics. I feel that it is akin to saying that one should not have sex with someone who is not responsible enough to care for us if we become infected with HIV/AIDS by having sex with them. Clearly, we all make positive and negative choices regarding our bodies, but safer sex is the first step on the way to limiting unplanned pregnancies. Blaming a woman who doesn't want to run out and plan a shotgun wedding gets us nowhere except for firmly in the saddle of our high horse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vile, foul, and disgusting.
I can't believe that Emily Yoffe could write, let alone believe, the pablum that was published about single motherhood. First of all, since much of the country has escaped the era of pregnancy being more shameful than murder, the ideas this article espouses are terribly outdated. Secondly, in the United States, birth control is openly available, if not free to those who would request it.
To suggest the one responsibility a woman has is to choose only to have sex with a man who would make a good father is ludicrous. Her choices begin with contraception, followed by choice of mate and choice of sexual activity. Then, should she possibly be pregnant, many states still respect her ability to choose early contraception. And barring all other circumstances, she still has the right to decide whether to have a child at all. And these are only the choices of the woman involved. Are we truly so sexist as to reduce all men to walking sperm donors, unaware of the consequences of their actions?
Aside from the ridiculousnous Yoffe spews about pregnancy, she clearly has no perspective on the current sexual climate at all. Becoming pregnant is by no means the worst outcome from unprotected or accidentally unprotected sex. Aside from the obvious bomb of HIV/AIDS, I would argue that herpes lasts as long, or longer than the responsibilities of having a child.
And finally, For Ms. Yoffee to rant and rave about young women's lack of personal responsibility presents a sexist and bigoted perspective on sexual politics. I feel that it is akin to saying that one should not have sex with someone who is not responsible enough to care for us if we become infected with HIV/AIDS by having sex with them. Clearly, we all make positive and negative choices regarding our bodies, but safer sex is the first step on the way to limiting unplanned pregnancies. Blaming a woman who doesn't want to run out and plan a shotgun wedding gets us nowhere except for firmly in the saddle of our high horse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
