The oped piece is a warning to the US public that lawmakers are attempting to manipulate medical insurance and provision of abortion services that essentially is asking women to take out rape insurance.
The laws concerning health care insurance and ability to receive medical procedures should not include a presumption or normalization of rape.
Death, disability and accident insurance make sense to carry, based on probabilities – but a special rider in your medical coverage to cover abortions made necessary by a rape provenance?
Is it that we just expect elected officials to be this clueless and offensive that we focus on celebrity trivia instead?
Is it because we are made to be powerless in the face of lawmakers and legislation that impacts society and our lives, but powerful and superior to the minutia and details of celebrity breakups?
Or perhaps these are not as unconnected as they seem.
Arnie’s love child and breakup with Maria is big news. In a recent standing in line at the grocery store, I had this exchange.
Man 1: What does she expect from a celebrity and powerful guy, that he’s going to be faithful.
Man 2: As if.
Man 1: Now she’s trying to use it to be some women advocate.
Seriously, bad enough that a woman who’s married should expect her powerful and famous husband to cheat, but suggesting that the woman can derived a benefit was too much for me.
I turned to challenge the men, and said, “being powerful and famous is not a get out of marriage vows free card. That they were married gives her the right to expect fidelity. That she was a famous person from a famous family and put her existing advocacy on hold so that he could have a political career in opposition to her family, gives her the expectation of him being faithful and true to her. Are you really telling me that men are basically cheaters and incapable of being faithful and are undeserving of the trust that they are given?”
At this point, both men’s eyes glazed over and they plastered patronizing smiles on their faces, playing placid possum until the nasty and uppity woman went away and they could continue in their admiration of a powerful man who betrayed his wife.
So, perhaps, if women truly cannot expect husbands to be faithful, then perhaps women really cannot expect men to refrain from raping them – after all, how is the betrayal of trust and the marriage contract any different than the betrayal of the social contract and someone else’s personal sovereignty?
Some religions require women to be covered from head to toe, so as to not tempt the man into lustful thoughts and rape.
I think that maybe we need to accept that many men simply lack the self control, the respect for other people, especially women and to understand that men need to be taken in firm hand to fight their base impulses.
But covering the women is solving the wrong end of the problem – clearly, we need to adopt a mode of dress whereby men wear halters on their heads with blinders on each side, as is done with horses, to keep them focused, a sort of man-burka that limits their field of vision to only include faces, with a brace under the chin to prevent them looking up and down women’s bodies and limits their field of vision to only a few feet ahead of them, so they cannot cruise a woman farther down the street.
Combined with a modified chastity belt – a codpiece with a urine collecting bag – that blocks hands or mouth access to the penis, unless the belt is removed by the key or combination holding wife, or in the case of unmarried men, their mothers.
Time to put the responsibility for self control where it belongs, and perhaps, men can learn to respect the bodily integrity of women, when they have had their own taken away from them for a period of time.
Women’s clothes are less responsible for the woman’s rape than the man’s watch and wallet are for his being mugged.