regarding deadbeat dads, adoption, and certain perceptions and misconceptions
-- for the adopion, abandonment parallel males femal, *remb, the adoption comparison to deadbeat fathers
Hmm... A somewhat common editorial opinion is that there is a double standard between people's opinions of women with their children as opposed to men with their children.___
But to be honest, this is not really what I am seeing everywhere. Let us discuss some double standards that are prevalent in popular culture.
We've all heard news reports about deadbeat dads who abandon their children and don't stay in the children's life and don't want to pay child support. Okay, I admit all that is bad.
But then if a woman does essentially the exact same thing, how come she is praised as being a strong woman in charge of her own life? For example, if a woman has an abortion, she is hailed for being a strong woman, she is lauded for practicing her right as a woman.
That's nothing to say, to speak of adoption. Certain talking heads always hail lavish compliments upon a female that gives her unwanted baby up for adoption. Common quotes are, "oh she's being so courageous, she's being so brave because" something or other. They usually say something like, "imagine the amount of heart-wrenching pain she had to endure for giving up her child."
They shower [[__lavish]] admiration and praise such as the following canned responses. She's being so very brave and so courageous because she wants to give her child a better life. She knows that she would not be a suitable parent, she know that she would not be a fit parent. So therefore she um, therefore she gave the child up, up for adoption.
So supposedly all that is true even though essentially she abandoned the child. The biological mother weighed all her options, and she made the wisest decision that would bring the greatest benefit for all involved parties.
The commentary is usually accompanied by factology that happens to be accurate. It is true that if a female gives up a child for adoption, it is in fact for the best. She is usually single, uneducated, sometimes even a high school dropout, unemployed, possibly on welfare, often not even a legal adult. She is in no shape to be a good parent. By staying out of the kid's life, she is giving it a chance at a better one. Okay, alright fair enough.
But then why couldn't we use those exact same [[arg]]__ in defense of deadbeat fathers? Theoretically, you could very easily furnish the same exact arguments towards deadbeat fathers. You could use the same modes of logic__
they keep getting thei- girlfriends pregnant, or whatever,
He could also say, oh well he knows that he's not a good person, he knows that he would not be able to give the child a good life, give the child a life. So therefore he abandoned the child because he knows he would not be a fit parent. He knew he would not be a good, suitable parent. So therefore he leaves the child in the hands of far more capable human beings, to give the child its best chance in life.
so how come there's a weird double standard
the word double standard would have to be in there somewhere
And frankly, to be brutally honest, if the guy really is a bad guy, then he probably did the best thing for all involved parties by staying out of the kid's life. I know this is not a popular opinion at all; in fact I don't think I have read this particular viewpoint anywhere. Of course that makes this a single-mother household with fatherless child having to be raised on food stamps and government cheese.
so back to the adoption. Remember how I mentioned that the biological mother is under the impression she is sending the kid off to a better life. She's being so brave because she's giving the child a better life.
Erm, a better life?? you have to know about the state of the foster care system in this country. it is horrible, children are abused, neglected, uh broken, abused by [_] horrible broken homes, like that is the definition of broken homes.
This simply brings me back to my initial assertion. I know it's not politically correct, I know it's not sugarcakes and rainbows and puppies and zero personal responsibility.
But it is what I believe. This is what I mean when I say the female needs to be more discriminating in her choice of people to have sex with. Both sex partners should have thoroughly considered all of this before risking the production of an unwanted child. Not just the male, and not just the female. They are both equally stupid and irresponsible. The male is stupid for having sex and possibly creating a fetus that he has no intention of supporting. And The female is stupid for not making sure the guy was a good guy before having sex with him and possibly creating a fetus.
But no one in any talking sound bites anywhere, nor in any lengthy, languorous, drawn-out essays ever arrives at this revelation. They all miraculously arrive at the exact same conclusion -- that the primary burden of birth control falls on the male participant's shoulders. Very few opinionaters ever offer any groundbreaking insight outside of this prepackaged canned response. There is no additional insight that maybe, just maybe, the female participant should shoulder some responsibility of making sure an unwanted fetus is not produced. It is always some permutation of the following: "The evil predatory male has to make sure the precious innocent sweet naive female does not get pregnant."
I do not understand why everywhere I encounter ___ nearly every single editorial opinion writer, and practically everywhere on the internet is [[ablaze__] with this same exact opinion. There is an astonishing lack of diversity in opinion on this particular topic. This is the box, and there is astonishingly little variance of thinking outside of it.
-- for the adopion, abandonment parallel males femal, *remb, the adoption comparison to deadbeat fathers
Hmm... A somewhat common editorial opinion is that there is a double standard between people's opinions of women with their children as opposed to men with their children.___
But to be honest, this is not really what I am seeing everywhere. Let us discuss some double standards that are prevalent in popular culture.
We've all heard news reports about deadbeat dads who abandon their children and don't stay in the children's life and don't want to pay child support. Okay, I admit all that is bad.
But then if a woman does essentially the exact same thing, how come she is praised as being a strong woman in charge of her own life? For example, if a woman has an abortion, she is hailed for being a strong woman, she is lauded for practicing her right as a woman.
That's nothing to say, to speak of adoption. Certain talking heads always hail lavish compliments upon a female that gives her unwanted baby up for adoption. Common quotes are, "oh she's being so courageous, she's being so brave because" something or other. They usually say something like, "imagine the amount of heart-wrenching pain she had to endure for giving up her child."
They shower [[__lavish]] admiration and praise such as the following canned responses. She's being so very brave and so courageous because she wants to give her child a better life. She knows that she would not be a suitable parent, she know that she would not be a fit parent. So therefore she um, therefore she gave the child up, up for adoption.
So supposedly all that is true even though essentially she abandoned the child. The biological mother weighed all her options, and she made the wisest decision that would bring the greatest benefit for all involved parties.
The commentary is usually accompanied by factology that happens to be accurate. It is true that if a female gives up a child for adoption, it is in fact for the best. She is usually single, uneducated, sometimes even a high school dropout, unemployed, possibly on welfare, often not even a legal adult. She is in no shape to be a good parent. By staying out of the kid's life, she is giving it a chance at a better one. Okay, alright fair enough.
But then why couldn't we use those exact same [[arg]]__ in defense of deadbeat fathers? Theoretically, you could very easily furnish the same exact arguments towards deadbeat fathers. You could use the same modes of logic__
they keep getting thei- girlfriends pregnant, or whatever,
He could also say, oh well he knows that he's not a good person, he knows that he would not be able to give the child a good life, give the child a life. So therefore he abandoned the child because he knows he would not be a fit parent. He knew he would not be a good, suitable parent. So therefore he leaves the child in the hands of far more capable human beings, to give the child its best chance in life.
so how come there's a weird double standard
the word double standard would have to be in there somewhere
And frankly, to be brutally honest, if the guy really is a bad guy, then he probably did the best thing for all involved parties by staying out of the kid's life. I know this is not a popular opinion at all; in fact I don't think I have read this particular viewpoint anywhere. Of course that makes this a single-mother household with fatherless child having to be raised on food stamps and government cheese.
so back to the adoption. Remember how I mentioned that the biological mother is under the impression she is sending the kid off to a better life. She's being so brave because she's giving the child a better life.
Erm, a better life?? you have to know about the state of the foster care system in this country. it is horrible, children are abused, neglected, uh broken, abused by [_] horrible broken homes, like that is the definition of broken homes.
This simply brings me back to my initial assertion. I know it's not politically correct, I know it's not sugarcakes and rainbows and puppies and zero personal responsibility.
But it is what I believe. This is what I mean when I say the female needs to be more discriminating in her choice of people to have sex with. Both sex partners should have thoroughly considered all of this before risking the production of an unwanted child. Not just the male, and not just the female. They are both equally stupid and irresponsible. The male is stupid for having sex and possibly creating a fetus that he has no intention of supporting. And The female is stupid for not making sure the guy was a good guy before having sex with him and possibly creating a fetus.
But no one in any talking sound bites anywhere, nor in any lengthy, languorous, drawn-out essays ever arrives at this revelation. They all miraculously arrive at the exact same conclusion -- that the primary burden of birth control falls on the male participant's shoulders. Very few opinionaters ever offer any groundbreaking insight outside of this prepackaged canned response. There is no additional insight that maybe, just maybe, the female participant should shoulder some responsibility of making sure an unwanted fetus is not produced. It is always some permutation of the following: "The evil predatory male has to make sure the precious innocent sweet naive female does not get pregnant."
I do not understand why everywhere I encounter ___ nearly every single editorial opinion writer, and practically everywhere on the internet is [[ablaze__] with this same exact opinion. There is an astonishing lack of diversity in opinion on this particular topic. This is the box, and there is astonishingly little variance of thinking outside of it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment