So, first post in my new journal. And what shall we talk about kiddies? How about a radical feminist/alternamom? I was just surfing around the net and found this link where a woman talks about how marriage is slavery and children are 100% the propery of their mothers. Oh, the joy.

(let me preface this with the fact that i am myself a parent and am in general not against many of the ideas involved in alternative parenting).



Stuff in italics are her words, regular text is my response.

Actually, the customary wedding ceremony in this country is worse than silly. It's sexist. It's a symbolic reminder of the time when marriage was nothing more than a transfer of ownership from the bride's father to the husband. The fact that the bride's name changes from that of her father to that of her husband is another remnant of this. Every time I think about the traditional wedding ceremony, I want to vomit.

Never mind the fact that very few cultures still view marriage in this fashion. It's called progress, lady. Just because something may once have had negative connotations doesn't mean that it should be trashed forever when a lot of positive progress has been made.

The bride is walked down the aisle by her father (her "owner" up until this point), whose surname she has used up until this point (during the time of slavery, slaves also used the surnames of their masters). She is dressed in virgin white. The groom is not dressed in virgin white, nor is he expected to be a virgin; in fact, he is expected to have played the field.

Way to stereotype. I've known men who were virgins until they were married; I've known women who slept with anything with a heartbeat. While I'm not saying that there is not still a gender bias, it is nowhere near as bad as this person makes it out to be.

The father (the previous owner) "gives away" the virginal bride to her new "owner," whose surname she will use from now on. The bouquet she carries is another symbol of her virginity. She throws it away at the end of the ceremony, as a symbol of the fact that, from now on, she will be expected to perform her "wifely duties." Puke, puke, puke. I can't go on.

Wow, i never knew that. And here i thought the giving away thing was a symbolic thing like, 'I approve of you marrying my daughter, this is how i show it'. Maybe I'm just naive. But again, just because it might have meant something bad centuries or decades ago does NOT mean it means something terrible now.


On to our next topic - child ownership!


From a tiny cell barely large enough to be seen, the woman grows a 7 1/2 pound (average) baby, using materials taken entirely from her own body. From a physical / material standpoint, the finished product is 99.9...% hers (the sperm, the only physical material the male contributes, isn't even large enough to be seen). From a legal standpoint, I believe that anything that comes from a person's body belongs to that person, unless it enters the body of another person, in which case it becomes the property of the other person. Therefore, when the sperm is in the male's body, it belongs to him. Once it enters the woman's body, it becomes her property.

Oooook. I just have this weird image in my head of the couple having sex and there being a gate at the woman's entrance with a sign that reads, 'all sperm entering are the property of the vagina'. I'm a little weirded out.

The mother grows the child inside her body for nine months. She then gives very painful and exhausting birth to it. Even after the birth, the child is still connected to her. Even after the cord is cut, it is indirectly connected to her when it breastfeeds. Men are not capable of pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding. In my opinion, this is the ONLY difference between men and women. But where children are concerned, it is a significant difference. Nature has clearly determined that children are a woman's domain.

Ok - I'm a parent. I've given birth twice, once naturally and once via c-section. Yes, it can be tough. Yes, you experience things that a man will never be able to experience. I do not however see how this invalidates a man's role in a child's life. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a child absolutely needs to have a father in their life, but to say that men shouldn't have anything to do with children because they can't give birth or breastfeed - that's just ridiculous.

Bonding. There is simply no way you can grow a child inside you for 9 months, give birth to it, and breastfeed it, without developing a stronger bond with it than anyone else who has not done these things.

Guess this chick hasn't read stories about women who kill their own babies without a second thought or feelings of remorse.

Yes, fathers bond with their children as well, but there is simply no comparison. The mother's bond is stronger, and on a physical level. The father's bond is on a purely psychological level. A father could develop just as strong a bond with a child that wasn't even his, as long as he thought it was his. Even adoptive bonds might be as strong. I believe the mother-child bond is the most sacred of all bonds.

So does this mean that she doesn't believe that a woman could bond with a child that she didn't give birth to? I'm a little confused if she's simply referring to men being able to bond to adopted children or what.


That made my brain hurt. I really try to be open minded about other people's belief systems but sometimes i just. Don't. Get it.

And i only gave the URL for you to check the site out for yourself. Please do not troll or flame this person.