![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sterilize all men for real change:
On August 23rd, arch-reactionary Bill O'Reilly celebrated 10 years of the welfare system reform signed into law by Bill Clinton. The bill is of concern mainly to wimmin with children, because statistically, poverty is about single mothers and their children in the united $tates.(1) What Bill O'Reilly did not mention is that sterilizing all men would be far more effective than any abortion ban for just about every ill concerning single motherhood that O'Reilly talks about.
The favorite reactionary spin pins social ills on the breakdown of the Black family, but with ineffective answers. Both O'Reilly and Bush lackey Clarence Page point to the Black family as their theme point--with both saying 70% of Blacks are born out-of-wedlock. Clarence Page wants to point to the Black family to distract attention from the ongoing situation with Katrina.(2) Yet divorce and people running out on children are much more common than just the 70% of Blacks born out-of-wedlock. The Pages and O'Reillys raise this question the way they do as code language for racism.
With prisons holding 3.4% of all Black men in this "free country" and premature death taking an even larger chunk, there is a shortage of available Black men for Black wimmin created by national oppression. White nationalist O'Reilly and Uncle Tom Page are not talking about that, despite usually being concerned about "supply and demand." Thus, the "Black family" discussion can only go so far without addressing the shortage of Black men.
Bill Clinton pointed to the vicious cycle that happens when teenage pregnancy results in motherhood which cuts short a mother's education. Yet in both England and the united $tates, the average age of first sexual intercourse has steadily declined from 21 in the 1950s to 16 now in England.(3) As England proves, it has nothing to do with being Black and outlawing abortion is not going to stop teens from having sex. However, sterilizing all men can stop sex from resulting in pregnancy and motherhood before education is done.
In the united $tates, the possibility of single motherhood is dawning, because of the wealth of society. What would be mostly unthinkable say in the 1700s, becomes barely thinkable or plausible to most wimmin now, especially if the quality of men available leaves something to be desired for a womyn's dignity.
For some, the answer is religious patriarchy, because they believe there is no point to a womyn's dignity since her role is to raise children. Even those reactionaries not bashing Blacks are implicitly white nationalists who believe progress is squeezing out more rug rats to raise the white trash tide.
Here the reactionaries are working against the tide of history, because as people become more technologically and economically advanced, they do not have to settle for what they used to just to survive. Whether they know it or not, wimmin today think more about their dignity than they used to in the motherhood equation.
This is very much connected to the problem that all sex is rape. Reactionaries are unable to see the trend in history, because they lack the strength of character to admit that their ancestors had families under more coercive circumstances. They cannot admit that the family based itself on rape. Yet that is clear as day when wimmin are economically better off and suddenly the birth- rate goes down. Wimmin fight for the right not to have children or as many as before.
Hey, it means that reactionaries did not understand the nature of wimmin. People can kid themselves as much as they want with romance culture fairy-tales, but the figures don't lie. In the past, rape had the cover of religious duty or the reality of economic necessity behind it. Now some wimmin are able to think of living alone economically and all hell is breaking loose.
Because reactionaries see nothing wrong with coercing the sexuality of wimmin, we are not surprised they turn a blind eye to the problem of pregnancy caused by rape. Lately, Phyllis Chesler and David Horowitz try to tell us that Islam is a rape culture, but what shall we say about countries rich enough to be able to have wimmin make their own decisions, but coerced into having children nonetheless--exactly what Horowitz, Patrick Buchanan and O'Reilly want. For many wimmin in the Islamic Third World, if they do not have children, they will have no social security system in old age. No such logic applies in rich Amerika; yet still extremists want to propagate the rape system, the system where sex is not for its own sake or for the sake of children but because of economic or religious dictates.
The reactionary solution is to ban abortion to restore womyn her place in the family as God ordered. Yet banning abortion is not going to stop fathers from running out on wimmin or even in a male-friendly world, from wimmin driving men out of the family. There is blame to go either way when it comes to children, but the blame game does not stop by banning abortion.
If all men were sterilized, pregnancy would never occur in "moments of passion," not to mention rape or incest. There could be a law that to get access to sperm, one must sign papers and contracts. Currently too much of the law is obscure to the average persyn. If all men were sterilized, artificial insemination could happen under ultra-clear legal circumstances where granting access to sperm meant support for the child, no matter what social bond or lack thereof of the parents. Gone would be old-style arguments about paternity too. We would know who the father is. A program of sterilizing all men would cut down on a large chunk of legal hassles in the system now--ranging from how to handle divorce, to paternity lawsuits to what to do about rape and incest victims who become pregnant.
Some say MIM is extremist for arguing that all men should be sterilized. MIM is not extremist compared with the reality now of pregnancy occurring in rape, incest or even just inevitable teenage moments of passion.
In the united $tates, elections in the smaller states are won by people calling for the toughest abortion bans. MIM says all men should come under a law and the reactionaries say all wimmin should come under an abortion law. The only difference is that the abortion ban idea holds the possibility of death by back- alley abortion while MIM's answer is less extreme, since no one dies in our solution.
If MIM is extremist, so is Red State Amerikkka--the part of the country that voted for Bush. What's important is not whether the idea is extreme, but whether it solves any problems.
Banning abortion won't stop the "moments of passion" or rape and incest. Sterilizing all men would make sure none of those acts result in pregnancy.
We can imagine just how much this would cut down on single-motherhood and fathers changing their minds (or wimmin who switch partners, not to blame just men). It would all have to be done in a thought-out procedure. Perhaps the real point of the reactionaries again is that they do not want children raised in a thought-out way. Maybe they are afraid that if men had a say, only after signing perfectly logical papers, there'd be even fewer children than now. After all, it stands to reason if having a child is up to two people, chances for having children are less than if only one decides. White nationalist Patrick Buchanan is worried about the white birth rate, but it would go down even further without the single mothers he derides.
Still reactionaries go on and on about how they are pro-family and anti-crime. They say having a man around cuts down on teenage crime and delinquency. Yet if they were serious, they'd be for sterilizing all men, because that way, there would have to be a man roped in on a contract for artificial insemination. More importantly, the people involved would be deliberate in their family planning.
For lesbian or gay families, it would also be possible to make plans via artificial insemination. The contract law could provide for them and an escape from responsibility in that circumstance for the assistants to the family involved.
The pro-life situation is hopeless, because "Plan B" drugs make most of the abortion question impossible to detect. Even if the pro-lifers pass a ban on late-term abortions, there will be a black market, which in a capitalist world is impossible to stop as the drug and weapons proliferation problems prove. The abortion ban will be ineffective and solve nothing while sterilizing all men would have far-ranging consequences, beyond just the abortion question.
Notes:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209981,00.html
2.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060824/1053100.asp
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,3605,685556,00.html