Bettynoirbettyblanc’s Blog

… almost unheard of. 

It is often said that if men could get pregnant abortions would be available with your burger at McDonald’s.  I joke, but it is widely assumed or stated that male pregnancies would result in an abortion on-demand world – the implication being that what stops this is sexism.

Actually, I take a different view. I think if men could get pregnant then abortion would go the way of smoking.  Why?

Well, I think pregnancy and birth would be viewed as the apex of masculinity.  The man would stoically put up with the aches and pains, boast about the ordeal of giving birth and how little pain relief he needed (a test of his strength you see) he would proudly display his stretch marks as evidence of the whopping great baby he miraculously carried through nine months.  Pregnancy would be a sign of his virility, a sign of his strength and a rite of passage into the world of ‘real men’.   The pregnant male body and the post-partum male body would be seen as the height of attractiveness and envied by other men. 

The baby or foetus would not be described as ‘a bunch of cells’ or compared to cancer or a parasite invading your body and leeching from you.  It would be seen as miracle, and men would take great pride that their bodies were capable of doing such a thing. 

It wouldn’t be a case of babies or work.  The idea that you have to give up one for the other would be unheard of.  The workplace would be based upon telecommuting, job shares and workplace creches.  This would allow the proud father to see his child and work – if he so wished.  He would not suffer financially for this as the workplace and jobmarket would recognise the extra skills and life experience that parenthood brings.  

Furthermore, jobs previously staffed by women (and underpaid as a result) would become more attractive.  It would be common to see male primary school teachers, kindergarten teachers, nannies and nurses.  The caring professions would be far more equally balanced in terms of gender. In particular in teaching, this would have added benefits for male and female students.   

If you were unemployed the state and local charities would be of unfailing help.  And there’d be no shame in receiving this.

Even better, the outside world would take into account the needs of parents with very young children – and those expecting.  Baby changing facilties would be everywhere – and would be clean and well stocked with supplies.  They would feature baby-appropriate changing tables, not the ridiculous pull-out hard plastic ones we see nowadays.  We would also see extra toilet facilties for pregnant people.  Buses and trains would have better and more areas designed for people with strollers, babies and toddlers.

Breastfeeding areas would be commonplace.   As would heaters for warming formula.  Baby-appropriate foods would be provided in restaurants and cafes.  Goodness, babies would be welcolmed in restaurants and cafes and aeroplanes would provide the necessary baby equipment – hence the drop in the rates of ‘oh no, I’m not sitting next to the baby…’

Being pregnant at university would not be a problem as facilties and advice related to the man’s condition and added needs would be there.  High schools would make provisions for pupils who found themselves in this situation – and the men in question would not be looked down upon. 

In short, as men have ordered the world to suit them (in many ways) today, so the world would be re-ordered to take account of his new abilities.  Pregnancy, babies and children would be valued and esteemed.

After the furore (rightly) surrounding the shooting of Tiller it would be nice to see someting for the murder of this man. But nope, Jim Pouillon’s death can’t even get onto mainstream media.  But it’s nothing to do with bias, I’m sure…

http://www.lifenews.com/state4409.html

The president’s response:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat5459.html

You may wish to check out this site:

http://www.prochoiceviolence.com/

Below are a number of articles relating to recent stories in the Times.  One is a piece of research on the brain and religious belief.  The other two are concerned with Richard Dawkins – he has a new book coming out, The Greatest Show on Earth. 

I just thought I would ramble slightly about Richard Dawkins, who is possibly one of my least favourite public figures.  I will admit I have never read any of his books – not that I’m against reading them I would be perfectly happy to, but I’m not paying for one, so I’m waiting on charity.  I do, however, read with interest many articles related to or written by the man himself.  I find him very interesting.

Why do I find him interesting?  I  just wonder about his dogged obsession with religion and with those that practice it.  He is  a scientist and yet he seems to spend of his time trying to argue that following a religion is at best ridiculous and at worst positively harmful.  I just don’t understand why.  He is one of these people who appears to believe that science and religion are incompatible.  I’ll put my hand up and say I think that is a load of rubbish. 

Personally I think people like Dawkins, through their words and actions, try to make this the case.  They belittle people who hold religious beliefs.  They ridicule people who doubt and aren’t prepared to take what others say at face value and who sit on the fence.  Okay – Dawkins says evolution is a fact.  I am stupid not to believe him.  Well, guess what?  I, like I imagine the majority of people who follow him and love calling creationists stupid, am not a scientist.  If am to believe what he says it takes an element of faith.  I can’t verify much of what he says because I don’t have access to the research or fully understand the terms and the processes involved.  It’s been a long time since I did higher biology and chemistry!  I suspect that for most of his vociferous cheerleaders on websites and forums across the globe, this is also the case.  Perhaps they don’t wish to seem stupid for questioning? 

In this respect, I find his followers similar to those of religious faiths.  They are taking what he says at face value because they believe in him.  They may well be correct – I don’t know.  The argument seems reasonable, but who knows?

Somewhat problematic for the argument that religion and science are  incompatible is that fact that, as Dawkins himself points out, many of the ‘top-level’ Christian leaders do not dispute evolution.  For them there is no conflict of interests.  But for Dawkins this isn’t enough.  The pope is still dim (re: condoms and aids) and other preachers should make it clear in sermons that Adam and Eve etc are not real and the stories are metaphorical.   Perhaps, in that case, Dawkins should make it explicit in his interviews and anything he publishes etc that the truth or otherwise of evolution does not deny the existence of a deity, or even the truth of the Abrahamic religions?

Leaving them aside, his main worry seems to be creationists in the US, maybe followed distantly by Muslims in Britain.  A whopping 40%  of Americans are creationists and Dawkins compares them to holocaust deniers.  This is highly offensive.  A holocaust denier is someone who twists the facts of the historical record in order to bolster a racist agenda.  These people are motivated by their hatred of Jews.  The facts do not matter.  For a creationist, evolution has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  There are questions about the theory that they believe have not been adequately answered.  They believe the story of  creation not in order to further a hate campaign, but as part of a belief system.  

I think Dawkins is either a liar or is pretty good at shooting himself in the foot.  Either he wants people to know about evolution and to ‘convert’ the creationists or he just wants a nice argument to bolster his book sales.  I think if it was the former then he would be wise to act in a more conciliatory manner, and watch his language (ie the use of the word ‘ignorant’, I would also like to point out at this point that some of the people I know who are most knowledgeable about evolution are in fact creationists) .  Worse, I believe his words convert more people to fundamentalist ideas than anything else as they engender a sense of victimhood and persecution amongst those who don’t agree with what he says.  

However, if his purpose is the latter, then he is doing very nicely for himself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6804971.ece

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article6818735.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6823229.ece

I came across this artcile in the Daily Telegraph and thought I would comment on it as it is a topic dear to my, er, heart!

I jest, but I do genuinely believe that women are underserved in the public toilet stakes.  I fully support those women (and count myself as one) who nip into the men’s room (unless you are intoxicated this is usually a very messy and pungent experience) because they are just fed up of waiting.

I would also like to add that the group of people who suffer the most in terms of these facilities is not women, but babies and toddlers.  Since moving to the US I have been astounded at the lack of adequate toilet facilities for babies – nevermind breastfeeding mothers.  Not only are the baby facilities almost exclusively in the women’s toilet – and then in the disabled cubicle, when there is one – but it solely consists of one pull-down, very hard, changing table with a safety strap.  It is usually dirty. 

Given the gargantuan size of most American shopping malls is it really too difficult to provide a decent baby changing area which is clean, accessible for fathers, and contains a separate area for nursing mothers? 

On this point I would like to single out the John Lewis store at the end of Prince’s Street in Edinburgh – they have THE best baby changing facilties I have ever come across.  They had a whole room which contained:

– three changing stations (one a pull-out boo!).  Two consisted of padded areas with adjacent sinks.  There were rolls of paper to put down over the changing area ( for cleanliness) and sanitising equipment.

– large bins for waste disposal

–  electric heaters for bottled milk/formula

– about fifteen chairs to sit in whilst you fed your baby or other children waited

– a separate, secluded, area in case you wanted to breastfeed in private

– NO ADULT TOILETS!!!! Which vastly improves the cleanliness of these facilities

– an added bonus of a lovely view across Edinburgh!

– oh, and not to forget it was accessible to fathers as well as mothers.  Thank goodness.

And I didn’t have to pay a penny to use it.

I would like to add an honourable mention to Boots the chemist in Aberdeen which had a ‘mother’s room’ (poor show) which did include similar changing stations and had a nursing area, but which also supplied nappies/diapers in case you had run out!  No charge for this.   They didn’t quite impress me as much as the room was not as clean as I would like and the bins very definitely needed emptying.  But that said, I think I would break down and cry in delight if I found something similar in and around Washington DC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6117831/Women-need-loos-and-we-need-them-now.html

This story appeared in the London Evening Standard back in 2008, but I only came across it today and thought I would add it here.

There are three things in particular I wanted to flag up:

– the doctors expressing their ‘sadness’ at babies being born alive.  Really?  Is that really the saddest thing here – that you get presented with the factual evidence of the humanity of the child in question?

– the parents who felt coerced into having an abortion as their child had down’s syndrome. 

– that having a cleft palate or a club foot (which as the article points out, can be rectified during childhood) is grounds for a child’s termination.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435549-details/66+babies+in+a+year+left+to+die+after+NHS+abortions+that+go+wrong/article.do