Monday, May 19, 2014
Bestselling no doubt and yet of what worth? Both series perpetuates the common view of females as 'those in need of protection' but the word 'protection' is used more in the Mafia sense of the word as the females involved must subordinate themselves and transform themselves into what is most desired by their male 'protectors'. I am not the first nor, I hope, the last to comment on these works of vulgar appeal. The well-worn themes of star-crossed lovers, guilty female sexual desire and doomed romance being trotted out once again like so many skeletal horses to stumble across the stage in a ghastly pantomime of decrepit delight. The worst of it is that people paid money for this. Give me a woman who desires to bathe the hero in boiling oil, much to his amusement, instead of these paltry creatures for Faro's Daughter is a much more glorious heroine! There's far more life in her and what woman hasn't wished from time to time to wring her man's neck and vice versa? Exasperation of the female by the male is a richer theme by far if only because there's so much of it. "I bought you a rose because I got my hair cut," he once said to her. Later on this was followed by "What are you doing with those newspapers and that lobster pole?" Admittedly this is better than if he had said to her "Put the gun down," but you can see that one doesn't need fantasy, or weapons, to explore the disconnect between males and females within any one culture's sexual norms and the impact of those norms upon relationships. I offer to you the example of my husband and our son in the kitchen with my daughter and her husband when my daughter yelled "Damn!" All three men froze on the edge of deciding between fight and flight rapidly doing a mental review hoping to God that the fault would not be theirs. Robust life between full-blooded women and men is where the fun lies so when it comes to sex and relationships accept no imitations.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Some people find the concept that women should have unfettered sovereignty over their own bodies even during pregnancy difficult one. When it is 'just her' no one has problem with a woman doing whatever with herself but if she becomes pregnant then everyone whether they know her or not feels they have the right to tell her what she can do. It is suddenly 'open season' on the pregnant woman's civil rights. Essentially the argument is: if she does not own her own body during pregnancy, who does? And if she does not own her own body during pregnancy, how is she NOT a slave? But does the child-to-be not have rights? No, unless the mother-to-be says otherwise. Few realize the risks a pregnant woman runs. Women do still die from pregnancy and from childbirth. This is no 'cakewalk'. Even in the final trimester something catastrophic can occur which will kill both of them unless the child is aborted. This has happened twice in the past year both in Catholic countries. One may say that they were hoping for a miracle. But one could also say that the mother's life wasn't deemed worthy of being saved if an abortion was required to save her life. "It was God's will." If one truly believes that then there was no reason to prosecute Gosnell for surely that was all "God's will " too. No pregnancy is perfect and the system is not without its flaws. The decision Roe vs Wade determined that up to week 26 (6.5 months), the mother-to-be's rights prevail. This is based not only upon viability but also upon specialized medical knowledge. Around week 26, a profound transformation occurs in the fetus - changes so profound that medical professionals in that field call it a metamorphosis. Before this transformation is completed, the child has few, if any, rights. After this transformation is completed, the child has rights. Un less there is a catastrophic failure in the pregnancy whereupon the doctors must save who they can for even now, the fetus could die in utero, turn septic and kill the woman. She bears the risks. Therefore she, and only she, has the right to make the decision.