When men dare to question ...

Interesting.

Someone posted the question today on Facebook asking why we do not have an International Men's Day. The response from one woman is that men are not disenfranchised. I disagree with this assertion, men are disenfranchised.

Men are denied the fulfillment of basic physiological needs when they are told they have no right to sexual fulfillment (numerous social policy considerations on that point, alone). They are denied the right of fatherhood when women abort a child to get revenge for some perceived wrong by the man. They are denied the right of fatherhood when a woman demands full custody of their children, then denies his right of visitation, even when the court orders it. The worst cases are when she moves out of state, not even letting the man know where they are.

The financial rights of men are denied when women insist on "renegotiating" child support or alimony payments after the man gets a better job or otherwise becomes successful in life. Men are denied their right to live freely when a woman falsely accuses him of rape or child molestation, ending with him, at very least, spending time in jail trying to prove his innocence. Men are denied their right of free association when women insist on having access to private clubs for men, even though they militarily defend their right to women-only facilities and events. Men are denied the right to free speech and freedom of the press when feminists attack them for even asking questions like the above or gather together to hold meetings to consider such questions.

While some may think men are not disenfranchised, the evidence says otherwise.

Are women oppressed and disenfranchised? In all too many ways, they are. They are underpaid, under-served by the healthcare industry, harassed by even the simplest of bodily functions, particularly if they are breastfeeding a child, and are too frequently discouraged from "men's" work occupations that there is no reason but tradition behind.

The problem as I see it is neither side has ever actually sat down with the other to hammer out an understanding of the issues. Each has always expected the other to bend to their will and needs without question or discussion and this is where our problem is.

Everyone needs to accept that the concept of rights and privileges is a two-way street. Room needs to be made and left for the others of society to have a say and to have their needs met. Just as women need their rights and needs respected and met, men need their rights and needs equally respected and met. Men and women both need to remember that we cannot have children, for example, without each other and that this is a fundamental part of our gender identity.

We need to return to the concepts of ''communal manhood'' and ''communal womanhood'' where our identity was not tied to the size of our bank accounts, how many ''baby mamas'' we got pregnant, or how many people we have beaten up or crushed under our occupational heels. Under communal identity, we should be measuring our maturity by our contribution to society and by the level of personal development we have achieved. Equally, we need to accept and respect the fact that our definitions of ''manhood'' and ''womanhood'' need to be revisited and revised.

Maybe its time we actually started a mature conversation instead of dismissing each other so casually.

A System Run Wild

I just returned from an errand and happened to run into a woman who showed a great deal of interest in the book I was reading, How to Overthrow the Government by Arianna Huffington (www.huffingtonpost.com). I mentioned this blog and she proceded to tell me the following:

A couple years ago, she was arrested for driving without a license and no proof of insurance, two offenses she readily admitted to me. Apparently, a short time before she was to appear in court, she lost her apartment (no details on why) and was preoccupied with trying to establish a new residency. She forgot about her court appearance and, naturally, a bench warrant was issued for her.

Within a few days, she was arrested at one of the homeless shelters in Denver and her children were taken into the foster-care system. The system tried to place the children with their fathers (two children, two different dads), but one placement did not work out well when the father proved to be abusive and neglectful. That child was put back into the foster-care system and awaits a non-familial placement. Fortunately the other child fared much better. His dad took the situation seriously and is working hard to care for his son. Guess which father gets the blue ribbon of the day.

The mother served her time (in jail since she didn't show up for court) for her rather minor crimes and returned to the community. The problem got worse when the foster-care/social worker stated she could not get her kids back until she re-established her housing and employment situation, something that for someone who is homeless can take months, if not years.

Such demands and expectations, though seeming reasonable on first glance, can be a virtual life sentence for the kid, sentencing him or her to spend the rest of their childhood lost in the system. Statistically, to say this is a less than ideal situation would be an understatement.

Keeping any mother or father from their children because they are homeless is an insult to our community. Any of us could end up homeless for one reason or another. To label someone as unfit to be a parent because they lost a job or had a disaster occur that cost them their home is adding insult to injury.

It is high time we come up with realistic solutions to situations like this. The system as it stands is doing far more harm than good.

Talk About a Typo!!!

According to the Associate Press, Arkansas lawmakers are in deep dodo.

Recently they passed a law that was supposed to set the age of marriage as 18 unless the girl was pregnant. The problem is, someone forgot to proofread it before they past the law. As passed, the law sets the age of marriage as 18 unless the girl is not pregnant!

This opens the door for me to talk about a very controversial trend that has been taking shape for more than 100 years. Until the late 1800s, the age of consent in most states was 14 or less (some as low as 9, I believe). In the 1890s a group of well intentioned Christian activists began a campaign to raise the age of consent in their states. The good intention was a simple one. They believed that by raising the age of consent that fewer young women would end up involved in prostitution. Yes, they are the same ones that convinced most states to ban prostitution completely.

Over the years, the age of consent has slowly been pushed higher and higher. Statutory rape laws were passed to punish anyone who violated the new edicts. The punishments over the years have also grown, from at one point the crime being considered little more than a misdemeanor in some jurisdictions to one that can land an offending party in prison for decades.

The problem is, no one has really considered whether these laws are truly effective in addressing the problems they claim to, nor are they alone. Patterns of behavior that were once considered potentially romantic (a man pursuing the woman of his dreams incessantly for example) now result more often than not in charges of sexual harrassment and/or stalking. Now, mind you, I am not saying there are not serious nut cases out there that women need to be defended against, but I am asking if we might have over stepped the bounds of reasonability.

Let me give an example. I cannot remember where I read it (I believe it was in a law review magazine many years ago), but there was an article where the author argued that the more strict our laws on such sex and lawful relationships become, the more likely we are to have lovers who choose to elope, hiding the true age of their relationship, in an effort to pursue their hearts' desires. Literally, they would rather be fugitives than to be without each other. Sounds a bit insane to anyone who has never felt irrational love for someone.

I can understand our desire to protect women and young girls from abuse and exploitation, but should we truly be outlawing the potential of true love?

Please understand, I am not advocating any adult/child or forced relationships. What I do question is holding people criminally liable in cases where no criminal intent exists or where the age difference is negligible (say, within 3 or 4 years).

Allow me to give some examples. A while back two young teenagers were arrested and put into juvenile hall for engaging in mutually agreed upon sexual relations and charged with molesting each other. In another case, two children (under the age of twelve) faced similar charges in another state over what was essentially a 'playing doctor' incident. In still another case, two older teenagers ranaway from home, falsified their age on a marriage license application, had a judge perform the marriage, and went on to consumate that marriage. They are both facing charges for the falsified application and for the mutual sexual relations afterwards.

This is what I mean when I ask, have we gone too far on this issue. Understand, I am all for protecting our children. I have a 13-year-old niece that I hope is being looked after properly and taught to respect herself and her future potential enough not to give in to sex before she is truly ready. I do hope that if she does find the right person that they do not end up victims of an over-reactive system like in the cases above.

The fundamental fact is: We spend so much time on cases like these that too often the real situations that need intervention and criminal prosecution end up slipping through the system. The more resources spent on unnecessary cases, the less there is to spend on the real cases. I am, essentially, calling for a little common sense in the application and creation of our laws.

I hope I made my position on this crystal clear.