6 ms·

That may be what the judge is thinking, but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually

by Mz 9y ago

That may be what the judge is thinking, but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. The women are not being sterilized. They are being offered a fairly low hassle and reliable form of birth control. I have personally known women who wanted to be sterilized at a young age and couldn't get it. I knew one woman who ended up pregnant for the third time out of wedlock by her alcoholic boyfriend after the medical establishment turned down her request to be sterilized. Just because that is the opinion of the judge does not mean this is not going to be viewed as a genuine opportunity by some people whose lives suck so very fucking much that they can't seem to stay out of jail.

mindcrime 9y ago
but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. Fair enough. I was admittedly looking at it from a male perspective where a vasectomy is basically sterilization (albeit a form that can be reversed, at least on some occasions). Nonetheless, for an agent of the State to use the "authority" granted to him/her to push something like this strikes me as very wrong. These aren't just random people off the street, they're prisoners who are having their freedom used as a bargaining chip. Also, and not to be glib, but there are other ways to avoid becoming pregnant, including at least one that is (biblical reports aside) 100% effective.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  > including at least one that is (biblical reports aside) 100% effective. Perhaps not always as available as we would hope...
- Mz 9y ago
  From the description in the article, these appear to be people with very little control over their lives. One thing that helps keep people entrenched in problems is that they lack simple tools for protecting themselves from negative outcomes. Women tend to have a lot less agency than men and poor people of both genders are often not very in control of their lives. The article is brief, so maybe there is more to it than what has been presented. But an awful lot of poor people are victims of their circumstances who can't manage to change that because of the many ways in which they are disempowered snowballing to give them just no real control. Last, I will note that one problem for women is that they can become pregnant from rape. If you are poor and a drug addict and generally not in control of your life, being lectured to "just say no (to sex)" is pretty insulting and can be completely unrealistic. The reality is that an awful lot of women deal with a lot of coercion when it comes to sex. Poor, powerless, uneducated women may be ill equipped to effectively fend it off, no matter how much they might desire to do so. Given the recent headlines concerning sexual harassment of incredibly privileged women, it seems like I shouldn't have to point that out.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    Last, I will note that one problem for women is that they can become pregnant from rape. Fair enough. That is a slightly more extreme scenario, but one I should have considered. Poor, powerless, uneducated women may be ill equipped to effectively fend it off, no matter how much they might desire to do so. Hmm.. I mean, I get what you're saying, but at the same time, that sounds a bit insulting towards those women (assuming you are talking about something short of flat out rape). Even if you're poor, powerless, and uneducated, you still have agency, and the ability to make choices, no? Anyway, none of this is meant to say that women in this position might not want birth control (or the men too as far as that goes). But I still stand by the assertion that it's wrong for a judge to use the position he's in to push a birth control agenda on people in a coercive environment. Making birth control available on a purely voluntary basis? Sure, I'm all for it. This? Still not so much.
    - Mz 9y ago
      Even if you're poor, powerless, and uneducated, you still have agency, and the ability to make choices, no? Women generally have less agency than men. I have an unusually high degree of agency for a woman. I still feel like my life is a lot harder than it would be if I were male. In spite of my determination to exercise agency (or perhaps because of it), the world seems to slam an awful lot of doors in my face. I think it is really disrespectful of such women to act like they want their lives to remain in the toilet. They probably don't. But I still stand by the assertion that it's wrong for a judge to use the position he's in to push a birth control agenda on people in a coercive environment. I guess I am less clear than you that this is simply coercive. The judge may have zero power to offer birth control on a completely voluntary basis. He may be seeing a need and trying to find a way to fill it. The world seems to not be set up to just do the right thing for the right reasons and yadda. That seems to be a serious uphill battle. It seems far easier to try to slip a little good under the door in spite of the world by calling it "punishing bad people." That doesn't mean the judge is right. It just means that I don't think the article really spells it out that well and I don't think it is as simple as people are painting it who hear it and immediately dislike the idea on principle. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't. Knee jerk rejections "on principle" are often a situation where worse options get chosen because they are more PC, not because they actually, in fact, are better solutions.

by Mz 9y ago

mindcrime 9y ago

but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. Fair enough. I was admittedly looking at it from a male perspective where a vasectomy is basically sterilization (albeit a form that can be reversed, at least on some occasions). Nonetheless, for an agent of the State to use the "authority" granted to him/her to push something like this strikes me as very wrong. These aren't just random people off the street, they're prisoners who are having their freedom used as a bargaining chip. Also, and not to be glib, but there are other ways to avoid becoming pregnant, including at least one that is (biblical reports aside) 100% effective.

dllthomas 9y ago
> including at least one that is (biblical reports aside) 100% effective. Perhaps not always as available as we would hope...
Mz 9y ago
From the description in the article, these appear to be people with very little control over their lives. One thing that helps keep people entrenched in problems is that they lack simple tools for protecting themselves from negative outcomes. Women tend to have a lot less agency than men and poor people of both genders are often not very in control of their lives. The article is brief, so maybe there is more to it than what has been presented. But an awful lot of poor people are victims of their circumstances who can't manage to change that because of the many ways in which they are disempowered snowballing to give them just no real control. Last, I will note that one problem for women is that they can become pregnant from rape. If you are poor and a drug addict and generally not in control of your life, being lectured to "just say no (to sex)" is pretty insulting and can be completely unrealistic. The reality is that an awful lot of women deal with a lot of coercion when it comes to sex. Poor, powerless, uneducated women may be ill equipped to effectively fend it off, no matter how much they might desire to do so. Given the recent headlines concerning sexual harassment of incredibly privileged women, it seems like I shouldn't have to point that out.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  Last, I will note that one problem for women is that they can become pregnant from rape. Fair enough. That is a slightly more extreme scenario, but one I should have considered. Poor, powerless, uneducated women may be ill equipped to effectively fend it off, no matter how much they might desire to do so. Hmm.. I mean, I get what you're saying, but at the same time, that sounds a bit insulting towards those women (assuming you are talking about something short of flat out rape). Even if you're poor, powerless, and uneducated, you still have agency, and the ability to make choices, no? Anyway, none of this is meant to say that women in this position might not want birth control (or the men too as far as that goes). But I still stand by the assertion that it's wrong for a judge to use the position he's in to push a birth control agenda on people in a coercive environment. Making birth control available on a purely voluntary basis? Sure, I'm all for it. This? Still not so much.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Even if you're poor, powerless, and uneducated, you still have agency, and the ability to make choices, no? Women generally have less agency than men. I have an unusually high degree of agency for a woman. I still feel like my life is a lot harder than it would be if I were male. In spite of my determination to exercise agency (or perhaps because of it), the world seems to slam an awful lot of doors in my face. I think it is really disrespectful of such women to act like they want their lives to remain in the toilet. They probably don't. But I still stand by the assertion that it's wrong for a judge to use the position he's in to push a birth control agenda on people in a coercive environment. I guess I am less clear than you that this is simply coercive. The judge may have zero power to offer birth control on a completely voluntary basis. He may be seeing a need and trying to find a way to fill it. The world seems to not be set up to just do the right thing for the right reasons and yadda. That seems to be a serious uphill battle. It seems far easier to try to slip a little good under the door in spite of the world by calling it "punishing bad people." That doesn't mean the judge is right. It just means that I don't think the article really spells it out that well and I don't think it is as simple as people are painting it who hear it and immediately dislike the idea on principle. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't. Knee jerk rejections "on principle" are often a situation where worse options get chosen because they are more PC, not because they actually, in fact, are better solutions.