Men essential to abortion debate

Selfish, sexist women have monopolized the abortion decision.

Pro-choice feminists spew rhetoric about fighting for a woman’s right to choose. Notice the exclusion of the word “man.” Despite the load of sperm needed to create that soon-to-be-aborted fetus, men apparently do not factor into the abortion question. A woman carries the child, so that means she has the sole right to decide, the desires of her partner be damned.

I wonder how many of these people have actually had sex. I ask because their exclusion of men from all of this reproductive rights babble seems to imply they believe men play no role whatsoever in the process of reproduction. Strange. You’d think at some point, probably when his penis is thrusting inside her, a realization might dawn on her. An epiphany: Men are just as involved in this thing as women.

Then again, it does hurt your self-centered crusade for “reproductive rights,” the right to do what you want with your body, by which you encompass the fate of the fertilized egg inside of you. If you acknowledge that men are important too, then that opens up a new avenue, namely one that involves men. Why should reproductive rights be limited just to women? If the pro-choice movement is going to exclude men, then I suggest coming up with a far less misleading name. Might I propose “illogical sexism”?

It brings a bit more truth to the table.

It gets better. Some of these same people believe men are not essential to reproduction. I actually overheard one girl declare that “all you need is sperm.”

But where do you think the sperm comes from in the first place? Women are considered the “givers of life,” but how do you think they create life? Babies do not spontaneously appear in the womb. The independent, battered woman freed from heinous patriarchal oppression still needs sperm manufactured in testicles if she wants to have a kid, and despite your best efforts, fathers can play an important role in the development of children.

Not that society would dare enforce such a notion. Courts rarely give a father’s concerns the same weight as a mother’s, and in society, credit is given to the mother while the father’s role, assuming he showed up for the job, is more of an afterthought. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and with a dwindling number of male role models, it’s no wonder shows like “The Pick Up Artist” — where men have to learn how to meet and talk to women — exist. It’s no wonder the caricature of the “dumb dad” is acceptable while the same attributes applied to a woman would be forbidden. It’s no wonder that women outnumber men in college attendance.

Men’s rights groups use this as evidence for “reverse sexism,” but there is no such thing. Sexism is sexism, no “reverse” to it. Labeling it as “reverse” marginalizes and diminishes the entire act, giving us the idea that maybe it’s not as bad when perpetuated by a historically oppressed group, when in fact it’s just as bad, if not worse thanks to the cover and blind eye turned toward it.

Is that “equality” talking? Feminism is supposed to be about equality of the sexes, a fact that might not be apparent to anyone born after 1980 or so. Equality — we love to talk about equality. Numerous laws and policies are passed in an effort to promote equality of the sexes and racial equality. A few quotas, a little diversity and a few less laws on your body makes everyone happy. In our public discourse, equality talks big.

It sure does ... with a nice, big muzzle strapped around its mouth.

— Travis Lee is a senior in French. He can be reached at wlee10@utk.edu.