The Human Zoo is a companion website for Mr. Hengsterman's Sociology classes at Ballston Spa High School. This will be the starting point for future blogs and podcasts. Enjoy the ride.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Can Motherhood be Optional?
Read and React to the Article "Can Motherhood be Optional?" on page #99 of your resource handbook and provide your feedback to Ms. MacKinnon's argument that a mother's status is automatic
I am appalled by the fact that men can walk away from a child with no problems and the country approves!!! This allows guys to just walk out on the mother and child. It is oppressive to the women and the child. Last time i checked, the man has a big role in the whole baby making process. He should be legally bound to the child from the moment of conception. When a women has a child she automatically gets the title of "mother." I think that men should be the same way and not have the option of being the "father." It is jsut wrong!
Men should have an anticipated participation in the development of their children. Men render half the genes to their children and therefore should obtain half the responsibility. Fathers shouldn't be excluded as true parents by society as well. Fathers can make great primary parents as long as they are caring and devoted. Just like women, men are equally important to the raising of young and therefore deserve and equal recognition.
I think that a father can be as influential in a child's life as the mother can. Although women have to carry the child and endure the pain and sacrifice for its birth, fathers can also raise children. Without the father, the child wouldn't be there. Although I might say that taking care of children is more natural for mothers, once fathers try, them can be major providers and teachers. I also think that at the moment of childbirth, the father and mother should be named as such, no matter what. I also think that it is unfair that a father can pack up and leave, while it is unacceptable for a mother to do so. Both play an equal part in the child's well being. The fact that a child is only legitimate when the father acknowledges the child is simply unjust.
We live in a society of "equality" or so we think. Regardless of the fact that half of the childs chromosomes are from the father, father's aren't absolutly necessary in a youndg child's life. It is more important for the child to be with their mother for biological reasons, which makes sense. I don't care what anyone says, besides from a few exceptions, mothers tend to be the care givers, and the fathers often choose their parenthood. This ruling ultimately protects the interest of the new born baby. The thing I find concerning is all the premiscous sex are soilders are having over seas. That really should be discourage and not be used as an arguement.
I think that it is not far that a man can leave his family with out getting into truble. This is how women are left to deal with there child all alone. A man can just make a baby with a girl and then just leave her to deal with it. That is just wrong in this country.
I am of the opinion that it isnt fair and and shouldnt happen, i am in a way ashamed of my gender in this regard. To have a man legally "bound" to a baby isnt a realistic idea however. Would you make DNA testing required on prehaps,sadly, multiple guys as seem on daytime television. Of course i think the right thing to do as a man is stick by your girl and make the best desicions possible, but in the end it is the woman that needs to, like in nature, pick the best and most reliable mate to have a baby with.
It is rediculous that a father can just leave his child behind at any time, if you are going to have a child with someone, you should be making a vow to stay with them forever. If not, you are hurting the child and its mother. The court is being completely sexist in this reguard, and is encouring single parent families. This is america, and women in other countries should not be treated like this, we need to set an example.
I disagree with the fact that the law almost defends fathers who walk out on their children, but I almost think it's somewhat of the mothers' fault. The fact that these women would choose to have sex with men, knowing the possible consequences (children), without knowing very much about them I find disgusting. It only takes a couple months of dating to know if a guy would make a good father and a committed husband or not. Don't think that I'm defending the men or anything, I just think that these types of things could be prevented by something as simple as abstinence.
I think its rediculous of the government to basically support men walking out on their children and the mother, because it was their mistake of getting some women pregnant. Now they have to deal with the consequences. If a mother wanted to walk out on her child she would be seen as a bad mother, but yet the government pretty much supports men deserting their children.
With whatever you chose to do you always have an option. You have the choice of doing the right thing, or look like a complete jerk. Once a man impregnates a woman they are automatically the biological father. However they can choose to be there as the father morally.
Well i guess i'll say first that this article had a lot of big words in it for me...and the use of language was a little confusing, but i think i understand what MacKinnon is saying. I agree that its rediculus how men can, and are participating in the act of "baby making", the mothers are having the babies, and then oh wait..no father? It's horrible how a man can just leave a mother to have a baby 9 months later as it is, but not even acknowledging that they're pregnant and not being legally bonded to the baby? Thats just not even ethical. It makes no sense whatsoever. Congress should chang the sex-discriminatory citizenship requirements.
13 comments:
I am appalled by the fact that men can walk away from a child with no problems and the country approves!!! This allows guys to just walk out on the mother and child. It is oppressive to the women and the child. Last time i checked, the man has a big role in the whole baby making process. He should be legally bound to the child from the moment of conception. When a women has a child she automatically gets the title of "mother." I think that men should be the same way and not have the option of being the "father." It is jsut wrong!
Men should have an anticipated participation in the development of their children. Men render half the genes to their children and therefore should obtain half the responsibility. Fathers shouldn't be excluded as true parents by society as well. Fathers can make great primary parents as long as they are caring and devoted. Just like women, men are equally important to the raising of young and therefore deserve and equal recognition.
I think that a father can be as influential in a child's life as the mother can. Although women have to carry the child and endure the pain and sacrifice for its birth, fathers can also raise children. Without the father, the child wouldn't be there. Although I might say that taking care of children is more natural for mothers, once fathers try, them can be major providers and teachers. I also think that at the moment of childbirth, the father and mother should be named as such, no matter what. I also think that it is unfair that a father can pack up and leave, while it is unacceptable for a mother to do so. Both play an equal part in the child's well being. The fact that a child is only legitimate when the father acknowledges the child is simply unjust.
We live in a society of "equality" or so we think. Regardless of the fact that half of the childs chromosomes are from the father, father's aren't absolutly necessary in a youndg child's life. It is more important for the child to be with their mother for biological reasons, which makes sense. I don't care what anyone says, besides from a few exceptions, mothers tend to be the care givers, and the fathers often choose their parenthood. This ruling ultimately protects the interest of the new born baby. The thing I find concerning is all the premiscous sex are soilders are having over seas. That really should be discourage and not be used as an arguement.
I think that it is not far that a man can leave his family with out getting into truble. This is how women are left to deal with there child all alone. A man can just make a baby with a girl and then just leave her to deal with it. That is just wrong in this country.
I am of the opinion that it isnt fair and and shouldnt happen, i am in a way ashamed of my gender in this regard. To have a man legally "bound" to a baby isnt a realistic idea however. Would you make DNA testing required on prehaps,sadly, multiple guys as seem on daytime television. Of course i think the right thing to do as a man is stick by your girl and make the best desicions possible, but in the end it is the woman that needs to, like in nature, pick the best and most reliable mate to have a baby with.
It is rediculous that a father can just leave his child behind at any time, if you are going to have a child with someone, you should be making a vow to stay with them forever. If not, you are hurting the child and its mother. The court is being completely sexist in this reguard, and is encouring single parent families. This is america, and women in other countries should not be treated like this, we need to set an example.
I disagree with the fact that the law almost defends fathers who walk out on their children, but I almost think it's somewhat of the mothers' fault. The fact that these women would choose to have sex with men, knowing the possible consequences (children), without knowing very much about them I find disgusting. It only takes a couple months of dating to know if a guy would make a good father and a committed husband or not. Don't think that I'm defending the men or anything, I just think that these types of things could be prevented by something as simple as abstinence.
I think its rediculous of the government to basically support men walking out on their children and the mother, because it was their mistake of getting some women pregnant. Now they have to deal with the consequences. If a mother wanted to walk out on her child she would be seen as a bad mother, but yet the government pretty much supports men deserting their children.
With whatever you chose to do you always have an option. You have the choice of doing the right thing, or look like a complete jerk. Once a man impregnates a woman they are automatically the biological father. However they can choose to be there as the father morally.
Well i guess i'll say first that this article had a lot of big words in it for me...and the use of language was a little confusing, but i think i understand what MacKinnon is saying. I agree that its rediculus how men can, and are participating in the act of "baby making", the mothers are having the babies, and then oh wait..no father? It's horrible how a man can just leave a mother to have a baby 9 months later as it is, but not even acknowledging that they're pregnant and not being legally bonded to the baby? Thats just not even ethical. It makes no sense whatsoever. Congress should chang the sex-discriminatory citizenship requirements.
its not right when a man leave a baby to be raise by the mother alone. if it takes two to make then he should be there while the baby grows up.
Post a Comment