I’m starting to feel like Marty McFly. I don’t have a nuclear-power DeLorean but I seemed to have entered a bizarre time warp into the past. How else do you explain comments like the ones in this thread at Legal Insurrection?:
I have daughters. And I hope my daughters have more sense than to do what Mz. Fluke did. Shamelessly flaunting promiscuity in front of the Congress and the nation is hardly the values I am trying to impart to my children. Certainly, no rational parent can have so low hopes for their children…
I remember when my brother was getting ready to leave home to enter boot camp (he had joined the Navy). My father was not a wealthy man by any stretch, yet he managed to support his family. I remember him telling my brother “I don’t have much to give you, except my good name. I hope you will respect it by your actions so that when you pass it on, it will be as good as when you were given it.”
That stuck with me that no matter our lot in life, we can always maintain our honor and dignity. Sandra Fluke took the name her father gave her and sullied it. And for that, shame on her.
The point is that people with good sense and good morals should refrain from extra- and pre-marital sex. To engage in such activities is to provide evidence of lacking in ones moral character. Further, to flaunt that, is to condemn oneself. It isn’t about using birth control. It is about promiscuous behavior, and who is going to pay for it.
Ms. Fluke, the SLUT in question, is being called a slut because she stated that she “is going broke paying for birth control.” People that are on the pill can get it from Target for nine bucks a month. Since the pill doesn’t prevent STD’s, maybe she’s supplementing the pill with condoms, but you can get 100 top-notch condoms from Amazon for forty bucks. Given that, it boggles the mind to imagine how much sex Ms. Fluke must be having to be going broke when she could be using 200 condoms and be on the pill too for under $100 a month.
I’m the mother of a thirty year old female attorney.
Ms. Fluke has intentionally damaged the reputations of the women of Georgetown Law school, for her own self-aggrandizement.
Women in the legal community have spent decades, proving to professors, law firms and clients that they are professionally competent, and that their gender should NEVER be a consideration in evaluating their abilities. With one stroke, Ms. Fluke has characterized the women of Georgetown Law school as mere sex objects, who engage in promiscuous sexual behavior, without taking responsibility for their actions.
It is not Ms. Fluke whose reputation has been sullied, it is every woman at Georgetown Law.
My personal favorite:
Obviously you seem to think that todays morals and standards are so much better, and make a better society, than in 1955.
1955, when young adults were expected to marry before they started having kids. 1955, when moms didn’t work and stayed home with their kids, being at the door when the kids got home from school. 1955, when men didn’t think it was honorable to have kids with numerous women they had no intention of supporting. 1955, when people didn’t expect the government to take care of them, but were willing to work for a better life for themselves and their kids, even if it meant having two jobs. 1955, when people still felt obligated to pay their bills and not run up massive debt. 1955, when veterans were given the honor they deserved, and it was cool to be patriotic and love this nation.
Yeah, things are so much better now, aren’t they?
I majored in history and one of my pet peeves is the idea that the past was superior to the present. Yeah, 1955 was a nice time for some people, unless you were a woman, or black, or (God forbid) a black woman. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness (and a crime) and even married couples could not legally purchase contraceptives.
But were people more moral back in those days?
The the rate of people in the United States infected with syphilis peaked in 1946 and teen pregnancy rate peaked in 1958. The murder rate peaked in 1933. Back then people had to get blood tested before marriage to check for syphilis and military members had to stand in regular “short-arm” inspections to check for STDs. We have hard data in this, it isn’t just anecdotal information.
If someone took the time to research the records I wonder how many births took place less than nine months before the parents’ wedding? If you go through the case reporters in the law library you’ll see cases describing all sorts of immorality. Back then adultery was one of the few acceptable justifications for a divorce and there are many colorful statements of facts in the cases discussing that topic. Some states recognized living together as a “common-law” marriage.
There are also legal cases discussing abortion. It was illegal back then, and if the mother died from complications the charge was murder. But we know there were lots of abortions performed during that era, and many unsolved “murders” because the women died. There are also cases dealing with prostitution and “public lewdness.” And let’s not forget the Kinsey Reports.
Most of us here were either very young or not yet born in 1955 so we have no personal experience of the 1950′s. Our parents and grandparents who were alive back then are likely to be reluctant to be totally honest, just as we keep things from our children. But the records and recollections of others tell us that the rates of sexual monogamy, abstinence, infidelity and promiscuity were all about the same as they are now, we’re just more open about it than they were.
I prefer to live in the present.
Filed under: Sexism and Misogyny | 55 Comments »