Saturday, October 11, 2008

Judge Judy Wants To Implant Women With Birth Control: Yeah That Equals Colluder Of The Week

image Most people whom I associate with are well aware of my addiction to reality tv or what I refer to as my daily junk food for the brain.  When I ran across an article about Judge Judy at The Guardian, I just had to read it.

It started off like all mini biopics giving a brief over haul of her life and some small background as to what her positions are on various issues.  Then I hit the part that made me see such a vision of red that the word colluder flashed brilliantly through my brain.

Her idea of solving juvenile delinquency by having every woman implanted at birth with a contraceptive chip, to be taken out only on request, might cause some controversy. But one can see her point. At least every child born would be a wanted child, and not - as she sees it as being in the US - the result of an accident and a bottle of vodka.

I am so sick of women being blamed for the problems of the world.  We all know that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, so why is the answer to implant a device in women?  Where is the male responsibility in her line of thinking?  Why is it that it is always the woman's body that society feels should be available for the worst sorts of violations? 

Let me see if I have this all figured out.  We don't  support single mothers, provide decent education, to say nothing of early childhood education. We regularly introduce children to images of violence, and encourage them from birth to believe that their worth is based in their ability to consume, but somehow none of these things have anything to do with childhood delinquency.  OOOh no, the problem is all these sluts who don't have the good sense to keep their legs closed.  Yeah for the good of all society we are just going to have to implant devices in women from birth so that we can control who can and cannot breed.

It is one thing to witness patriarchy working to keep women second class citizens, but quite another when women actively participate in maintaining the gender hierarchy. Patriarchy maintains its stronghold in part because some women continue to support it in spite of the very obvious fact that it is not in our best interest to do so. This week the colluder that I am calling out is Judge Judy. Shame on you for suggesting that the state should have the right to implant anything in a woman's body.


AR said...

I agree that citing women specifically for implantation is sexist. Although, as you point out, conception requires both a man and a woman, it doesn't make sense to do it to both when it can be done to one for half the trouble, it does not follow that it must be women to whom it is done, or that such a device for women would be safer or more effective than the equivalent in men.

But another part of the problem is also interesting. In most industrial nations, the state already asserts the authority to make medical decisions for people in the form of mandatory vaccination, so that part is not without precedent. There are practical differences, namely that the device in question here does not presently exist in a safe, effective, and reliably reversible form, and that it is unclear if the "social benefit" would be worth the opportunity costs, but the question of limits of state prerogative is exactly the same.

So, if this is unacceptable, does it follow that mandatory vaccination is also unacceptable, and if not, why not?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be easier to sterilize all boys, then reverse the procedure upon request? I mean, most anti-pregnancy methods can have serious health repercussions. Keeping boys from ejaculating sperm, but not semen, has no consequences.

aviva said...

Word, Renee. Just...word. I don't have anything to add. said...

But w/ most vaccinations you can opt out of them if you really want to. All it takes is a letter from a religious official (and you don't even really have to be a member of that religion, but just say that you are). There aren't really any "mandatory" vaccines, just ones that are highly encouraged. They say mandatory, but there are plenty of ways around them. Not trying to be argumentative, honest.

This forced birth control is invasive. It's the same as wanting to put an ID chip in people at birth. I can't believe it is the best way...I do very much see your point that you could get the benefit w/ half the trouble...but like anonymous said, semen but not sperm sounds intelligent. I am after all just pondering in type, b/c these things aren't really perfected in a way that is safe and reversible. It runs along the lines that a vasectomy is safer for a man than a tubal is for a woman.

But to be fair, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Were to do something like this for real, everyone or no one. But in the end, I think it's a terrible idea.

AR said...

Ah, yes, vaccines can be opted out of. I didn't know it was that easy. Even then, though, the state assumes the right to make you jump through hoops to get out of it.

Would this proposal be less bothersome if it were done in that way instead of actually being mandatory?

Wouldn't it be easier to sterilize all boys, then reverse the procedure upon request?

With present technology, Judy's proposal wouldn't be practical for either sex. She is apparently speculating on the use of some future technology, or is terribly ignorant of modern birth control.

Keeping boys from ejaculating sperm, but not semen, has no consequences.

With present technology, that's not true. There is post-vasectomy pain syndrome, for one, as well as the fact that many doctors would now be spending their time performing millions of sterilizing operations instead of any other use of their medical expertise.

thewhatifgirl said...

At least in my state, getting out of a mandatory vaccine was as easy as signing a single paper that said I was morally against it. I wouldn't call that "jumping through hoops."

But to the topic at hand, I also have to wonder what Judge Judy's views on preventive measures like comprehensive sex ed and readily accessible birth control are. Wouldn't that be an easier, more humane, less sexist way to keep so many of these pregnancies from happening?