Passing, Covering, and the affects it has on gender equality for women

Although we read and discussed the article about the PMS defense by Dershowitz and the article about passing and covering by Yoshino separated by a few other topics, I feel like they are really relatable and go together in my head. The PMS case could be an example of both covering and failing to cover. She might have had another round of drinks with men in order to not seem like she had a lower alcohol tolerance, however, whether this was her excuse are not, it is not the kind of covering you should be partaking in.

Warning! If at some point covering puts you in danger or others in danger, do not partake. It is not worth it. If the situation requires covering and it is dangerous, change you job.

As a doctor, there is no doubt that she knew how much less alcohol a womans body can take in without being legally drunk, which is about half of a mans. If she was “covering” in order to keep up the mens’ drink intake she should at least be responsible about it and waited to drive home or called her husband to come pick them up especially with children in the car. This is how she might have been covering but the important part is how she didn’t cover, if she was even telling the truth, in order to use a difference to get away with something. If woman want to be seen as equals to men in the eyes of the world, they should not use excuses like, I was PMSing to get out of a ticket. I will make the assumption that everyone knows drinking has a tendency to make some people lash out, why wasn’t this the reason she lashed out at the police officer. Secondly, There is no proof that she was PMSing at the time of the arrest?How does one even prove they were PMSing? Is there a scientific length of time in which every woman pms’s previous to starting her period? Well I looked it up on the internet and it says 1 or 2 weeks prior. That means women could be PMSing half of the month. So if a person concluded that this gender difference is an excuse for not being responsible for your actions, what does that mean for those who work or care for children?If woman should not be held responsible for their actions when they are PMSIng, should they not be trusted, or paid, for their duties during this time period either? Should woman not be responsible for the safety of their children when they are PMSing either?

Both men and women should be responsible enough to make wise decisions on behalf of their child. What if a father was driving his children home, drunk, then beat up the cop when asked to take a breathalyzer? He would have been thought irresponsible and violent. I think woman should be held to the same standard. She was drinking and driving. PMS makes her not responsible for that?

This woman is a hypocrite for wanting to work in a field that traditionally was all male, but wants to the benefits of being a female. If I knew this lady personally, I would have told her to “Man up”. If you pay the crime, you do the time. I’m not sure how much impact this one particular case has on the court system since it wasn’t a Supreme Court case but if it had gotten significant attention from the all americans I would be livid. It isn’t really difficult to make small changes in order to cover. Men aren’t stupid, they know that women have periods but women do not have to use it as an excuse for everything that goes wrong in their lives or make it so blatantly obvious to the public when they are.

Here are some tips for women to non chelantly deal with male/female differences.

1. For instance, instead of taking midol, or pamprin in public, I take Tylenol. I don’t feel a dramatic difference, and it’s a lot less discreet because it is multi-purpose .

Explaination- Most women cover when they are PMSing. Do you hear women in the office going around saying oh, I have cramps, I cant come to work today? Or “Don’t talk to me, Im PMSIng and if you cross me, I might lash out at you and start beating you up? No. most women, not all, try to be discreet.

2. What about pregnancy? Definitely something you cant help but notice and pretty impossible to hide.

My suggestion- Do your best to make it to the bathroom while you have morning sickness opposed to throwing up in your office trash can. Don’t ask all of you co-workers to touch your belly, its kind of creepy for one, and it definitely draws even more attention to your stomach.

I’m not saying that women should be spending all their time and energy covering, but I am saying that in situations away from friends and family, where you want to be taken seriously, women should consider making small changes to not be seen as week.

Situations where it is acceptable for women to use their physical features to benefit themselves do exist like on dates or within a marriage as long as both parties agree to their gender roles but there are times where I would shy away from using them to your benefit.

Like what Kelsey was asking about in class, would be a woman wearing a low cut blouse or short skirt and making her feminine benefits obtruse. Is this fair? Women who want to be taken seriously should not blame their gender for their faults, nor should they use their physical differences to get ahead when working or dealing with cops.

I’m not asking for women to pass as men, I’m simply saying that if you are going to complain and riot for equality in the work force, then do your part too. Dry to bridge that gap, and not make certain female problems so obtruse that your boss cant help but wish he would have hired a male. . There are plenty of situations in which men might struggle and fear that they have to cover. Men for instance my quietly tear up instead of sobbing loudly when the family deals with a catastrophe in order to be able to comfort his wife, and be strong for his family. Granted this isn’t a situation that brings all to a more common ground but it is a cover in order to meet a social norm. I feel like most things that we all strive to cover about make us stronger, builds character and brings us closer to the ideal. I have not experienced the situations from both sides so I cant know for sure, but both men and women have to cover, but men have to do it at home too.

Women do not have to cover if they don’t chose to, but if they don’t if the work force it will be harder on them to move up. If they don’t want to join the work force, there are less times where it is necessary to cover. Trophy wives are meant to use their differences to get what they want and have few responsibilities that would force them to cover. Or in households where gender roles are rigid and the wife stays home (which isn’t an easy task I might add) there is also less need to cover. I only ask one thing of all women and it is this.

Don’t give society excuses to hold the female gender to a separate standard. It took 50 years after African Americans were allowed to vote before women were able to and its instances like the PMS case that could prevent America from having a female president 50 year after having an African American President.

Artificial Insemination

In class and through an array of articles we read regarding sex and consent among other topics regarding the psychology of those involved, and what is and isn’t moral.

In the Bellioti article sexual exploitation and respect were covered. I think in terms of respect Bellioti covered accurately what you should or should not have sex with if respect for the object or person are the only thing governing your choices. The statement I liked best from the Bellioti came towards the end, (no pun intended). It states. “It must be pointed out that to state that a certain act is not immoral does not entail that it is advisable to pursue.” That statement sums up my reaction the article. I understand that other people might not think like me, but most of those things have never even crossed my mind up until reading the article. Recently, after reading through the plethora of sex related articles and dealing with members of the opposite sex, my thoughts aren’t what the human race can have sex with but how can we get away with not having sex with the other race. Maybe instead of worrying about all of this we should just stop having sex all together. At this point we don’t really even need to come into contact with the other sex in order to reproduce. We have artificial insemination. In the case of sex, we wouldn’t have to worry about consent or disrespect. I realize that this doesn’t solve the problem of sexual desires but it does solve the predicament of consent. Unless a woman steals a mans sperm out of a test tube, there is consent. See clip from The Switch posted at the bottom.

This is a lot more clear cut then deciding if a woman is consenting to sex if she takes of her clothes or kisses you while on top of you. Here are some more questions that went through my head that Im going to do my best to work out on paper.

What do people have the right to consent to?

How do you know if someone has consented?

Can you prove someone consented?

As you can see by these tough questions and the obvious difficulties that come from dealing with the opposite sex, it’s no wonder I think that test tube babies would be the simplest answer to all of our sex related problems. Plus, we would no longer have to worry about STDs or accidental pregnancies.

Now to attempt to answer the first question: What do people have the right to consent to? More directly is who do you belong to? Who has authority over your body. Most people would answer (yes I’m speaking generally) would say that “I have authority over my own body, no one can consent except me!” But there is a lot of other answers that one might not think of right of the bat. Like when you are under 17 years of age. The age of consent. Does that mean your parents can consent for you? Under U.S. law, no. but does that mean it is illegal to have sex under the age of 17? No, not if your partner is also under age. But your parents are your legal guardians so shouldn’t they have the authority over your body until you turn 18? You can’t tattoo your body without their permission until your 18, but you can have sex without their permission as long as your partner isn’t an adult? This doesn’t make sense. Cant sex do a lot more harm than a tattoo? It doesn’t add up. Ok, so what if you are over the age of 18, are you the only one that has authority over your body? What about God? (I know, predictable answer to come from B.G.B) In romans it discusses that you are either a slave to sin or a slave to God. (later it discussed that we are friends and sons and daughters of God thanks to the death of Jesus on the cross but that is unrelated to this topic). So from my view point God has authority over your body, whether you chose to adhere to that authority or not, whether you believe in God or not. But even if you don’t believe in God and that type of authority is irrelevant doesn’t your spouse, if you ever get married, have some authority over who you can consent to? When you get married aren’t you promising to “love, honor and respect” that person. And if you’re not, why get married? For financial reasons? Insurance reasons? Arranged marriage?

Advice from B.G.B.-Don’t get married for any of these reasons.

So my conclusion in this is, that in my lifetime, I have never and will never have the freedom to consent without the prior consent of God first, for a period of time, my parents, and at some point my husband. That’s a lot of people to get permission from in order to have sex. (just saying)

Next question-How do you know if someone has consented?

We wrote a summary for class, or brought a clip of consent for class but I bet not all of our answers were the same. My point in this being is that the only way for someone to absolutely positively know that someone is consenting is to ask this “are you consenting to me putting my hand on you hip?” other person: “yes, I consent.” And so on and so forth until its over. But the other question is how do you know if that person is legally able to consent? You better get a BAC test and make sure you test for GHB and other date rape drugs! Some might think that the Antioch College sexual offense policy was too extreme, it’s probably the most accurate way to protect the students and avoid lawsuits and crime.

The next question, Can you prove someone consented?

So on pondering this question the answer is yes. How you might ask?

Get a tape recorder, ask the accomplice if they consent, what day it is, and what time it is, (because you can consent to sex in the same day at one point in time and be raped by the same guy later that day. ) Have your accomplice initial by the test strip for the BAC level and GHB test that he/she is neither drunk nor drugged and is capable of consent. Leave the tape recorder on during the activities so that as both are consenting to every progression there is a record of consent. Keep a copy of every sexual contact consent packet just in case there is a legal discrepancy. Sounds like a lot of work to have sex doesn’t it?

This is my reasoning behind the push for A.I. all the way around. There would be no STD’s, wife battering (no need to get married if there is no need for sex), no need for paternity test, and above all, NO ISSUES with consent.

Note: I realize that I didn’t address how people would release sexual tension if we only used A.I. I’m not even sure A.I. matches up with my religious beliefs so honestly, I don’t think I have answer to what you should do to get rid of that pent up sexual frustration. Bellioti might be able to help you though. <-disclaimer: the Bellioti statement was a complete joke.

link to an example of non consent using A.I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkuOg4DxeK0

Selfishness, Harry Browne’s big rubber ball, and a probable truth

I will write this post in chronological order of thoughts from reading to class to thoughts I had after class.

As I read Harry Browne’s article the thing that bothered me the most was his read ball theory. Who decided there was only one read ball? Who says only one person can be happy at one time? I don’t know who wrote those ruled of life, but Im pretty sure if there is only one red ball full of happiness is this whole world, I must have already been a lot more fortunate than most, because I have had it a lot in my life. Im not saying my life has been a barrel full of monkeys; I have had my share of catastrophe and sorrow, but it’s those who surrounded me in those times that helped me get out of that sorrow. We should share in each others sorrow and joy. Why cant we all have red balls don’t we all have happiness to share? Whether your selfish or not, life is going to be difficult. Things are going to happen that selfishness cannot fix or cope with. No one is going to want to help you if you have only ever looked out for yourself, thus creating a selfish misery.

My next train of thought turns to how I deal with my own pain and anguish. When my sister passed away, the best way for me to cope was to be strong for my parents and friends of my sister; Encouraging them, loving on them, and trying to comfort them in a time of pain, even though I was in pain as well. Thinking about other people’s problems and trying to help them deal help me not to dwell on my own. What would have happened to me, who I would be if I would have focused only on myself and dealt with everything internally. My misery would have lasted a lot longer. I’m not saying my sadness is gone, but my “joy” comes from something that is so much more permenant than my temporary situation and if my smile, or kind act can bring someone happiness than, I am will to do that. Even when I feel like I am dying inside. I don’t believe that happiness can be found in a certain situation, you have to create your own happiness. Sometimes certain situations get in the way of that, but I have learned you gotta fake it until you make it. And helping someone else “make it” is where my happiness can be restored, even though my joy never left.

In my leadership program we talk a lot about service and sacrifice and how those are foundations leadership is built on. In my reading following this class this is something I found in one of my books. “Your service could inspire people and your sacrifice could help lighten someone’s load opposed to everyone dealing with their misery alone.” Pg. 74

No man is an island.

How would the government work if we only looked out for our own interest? People already think politicians are self-serving as it is, what if they didn’t even pretend to care for people other than those who could benefit them? The answer is, we would be better off with no government that be in a country led by someone only looking out for themselves.

But then again I am not exactly like everyone else in this world. I thrive off of the energy I receive from others. People (and Jesus of course) are what I live for. It’s why I get out of bed every morning. I love people too much to shoot for my happiness at the expense of others.

Now here comes the Jesus stuff. I realize that it might seem like the only reasoning for any of my thoughts that I have, but the Bible is my philosophy. In John 15:13, Jesus is talking and he states, greater love in none but this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

My purpose in life is love, not happiness. Love is above all things. (scripture can be provided ig you like). This will be discussed further at the end of the blog. I believe that from love, comes happiness at times.

My probable truth was discussed in class as well as the article and it is the closest thing that was stated in the article that I can agree with.

Probable truth- to some degree, helping others is for my own good and happiness.

So does this mean that I believe in transactional happiness? Judging by the way I live, one might say yes, however; I strive to love regardless of what I can get out of the situation. Transactional happiness in discussed in the Bible as well, again, straight for Jesus’ mouth.

Matthew 5:46-If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I guess the difference is where I plan on receiving my reward. If I am rewarded on this earth for the good that I do on earth, I need not be rewarded in heaven, and scripture points towards a conclusion that I wont. I would much rather be rewarded in heaven than here on this earth where the rewards are temporary. Eternity is forever. Doing what the Lord wants me to do, (serve others) brings me joy in the long term which is much greater than the temporary satisfaction one gets from making a decision to serve themselves.

Now let’s return to purpose. “I want to be happy” is probably the most common answer when people are asked what they aspire to in life. For me, Happiness doesn’t bring meaning. What brings meaning to your life? My purpose and goal in life is much more than just being happy. Once again, this world is temporary. But even so, my goal isn’t to rack up treasures in heaven, at least I don’t want it to be. I want to fall in love with service. I want to be obedient to Christ not so that he will bless me, but because of who He is. He gives me something that is not even comparable to happiness, and that is joy. Joy never leaves.