Becca and the Fragile Girl

As someone who is the perpetually single girl without an attentive boyfriend, and has more than most male friends, some of whom are single (or, at some point during our acquaintance, I knew them when they were single).  Certain types of girls can have a profound affect on the behaviors of most single males, and when they infiltrate groups, things change.  Such girls may be labeled as:

• Fragile
• Girly
• Not balls to the wall
• Quiet
• Pretty
• "The girls who end sentences with the voice influx like they are asking a question"
• Prissy

I have found that when males get around these types of girls (we will simply refer to them as girls in the post), they totally do a 180 in their personality, become overly attentive to such girls, and seem to all but forget about the other females in the periphery - mainly, those of us who do not fit into these descriptions, or could otherwise be more appropriately tagged as "broads" or "chicks" (in my vernacular, and will refer to them as chicks in this post). Such males literally completely reverse their previous inclinations.  The girl could be standing there in a long sleeve shirt, and they would willingly give the shirt off their back if she were to give the slightest hint of being chilly (not cold, chilly).  While, the other chicks standing around are in short sleeves and just as chilly (or probably more so because she was in short sleeves).  These chicks have even walked away, and the guys don't even notice she was missing because they were so smitten with the fragile girl. I am not saying the chicks needed the shirt or that it should have been offered to her (if she was really that cold she could have asked for it), but I am simply pointing out the fact that these boys rushed to make sure these fragile girls are comfortable/safe/whatever without the consideration of the other chick. I've given my jacket to a dude before b/c he was a wuss and was cold (not chilly, cold), so that is not nearly the point.

What is this fascination?  Is it the fact that it is not something that they see everyday so they are just totally infatuated with a girly girl?  I mean, if you were looking for a girly girl, why would you be hanging out with a chick?  For serious.

In case you didn't realize it, chicks have the same body parts that these girls do - and, don't tell me that chicks don't show off their assets.  We just don't take an hour flat ironing our hair every day or speak in quiet tones or keep our opinions to ourselves.  We may not act "feminine" by conventional definition - we love sports, we can discuss any action flick, we don't take crap from people, we tell it like it is, etc - but we are girls.  Just because we are brash and ballsy, doesn't mean we don't embrace our girl power (and in my opinion, I don't think girly girls really embrace their girl power, but their fragile femininity - big difference). We may not wear dresses, but we like jeans that make our asses look good, or tops that indicate DefCom3.  We are our own kind of feminine - the kick-ass, ballsy type.  Not the fragile feminine type. So what is the obsession with the girly, pink-loving, fragile kind?

I am not a second class citizen.

I am a female.


I am a woman.

Second class citizenship means having others tell you what to do with your body and life. It is what happens when I am forced to live with decisions of others, because I don't have the tools to protect myself or make those decision, because others don't want me to have them.  Second class citizenship also means not having support from anyone for equal pay for equal work.


And in case you don't realize, by throwing everything you have against a bill/policy/program that restricts a groups' access to basic healthcare and preventative medicine, like contraception, you are creating a group of second class citizens.  You are requiring my care to be held hostage by my employer and/or insurance plan, as I can't just swap out my job or insurance.  This program will protect my rights to care so my employer/insurance can't dick me over.  It can't fully protect us from be shamed for making our decisions, but at least we can make them.

Just because:
I take the pill... I am not a second class citizen.
I had more than one sexual partner... I am not a second class citizen.
I may like to go out and drink, and get a little crazy... I am not a second class citizen.
I may have a one-night stand... I am not a second class citizen.
I want to protect myself from pregnancy... I am not a second class citizen.
I may have spurts of being a "dirty slut" in between long term monogamous relationships... I am not a second class citizen.
I don't have a penis... I am not a second class citizen.
We had to fight for our right to vote, have a voice, inherit what is ours, work in certain professions, go to certain schools, etc.... I am not a second class citizen (now).
I decided to have a baby out of wedlock and I am the dreaded "single mother"... I am not a second class citizen.

I am not a second class citizen because:
Unless, you pulled a Minerva, I am the one who carries your children, not men.
I am the one forced to ensure there is population control (with or without the pill), not men.
I am the one who physically lives with the consequences of sex, not men.
I control what happens with my body, no one else should.
I decide who I have sex with, and when, no one else.
I don't hear any outcry against men having vasectomies, and that "stops" life just as much as the pill.
No one questions how much sex a man has, why should you question mine, and what protections I should have.
As long as the sex I have (or any one has) is consensual, you have no business concerning yourself with it.
I am taking precautions to protect myself when I do decide to have sex, so let me do it.
I probably have more balls than most "men" do.
Men just have to slap on a rubber or time it, and that's all the "birth control" they worry about, I am the one who wants to protect myself (and my partner).
We had to fight for the right to do a lot of things, and we won't stop.
I am amazing.
I will change the world.

'I'm a woman, I like men. If that means I'm not “lady-like”, then I guess I'm just not a lady! At least I'm honest.'

Access to Vagina Freedom

A few thoughts:

• Most people who are opposed to making women-specific healthcare available to all women are males (I refuse to call them men, because in some instances, they are more like boys).  They claim to be god-loving and god-fearing, therefore they shouldn't have to pay for women to take medications that kill human life (which is NOT what birth control does, BTW).  But, how pious would they be when they get someone pregnant due to the fact they timed the rhythm method wrong and the girl they hooked up with didn't have access to birth control (because, let's be realistic, only a small portion of so-called god-loving people waited until marriage)?  Would they be the "good" man they claim to be and raise that child - even if it was out of wedlock?  Would they turn on a dime and demand she have an abortion?  Or, what if you were happily married with several kids, and another child would be a huge financial and emotional burden for your family - you are just going to stop having sex? There are too many "what ifs" with "good" men - let women decide how to take care of their body.  After all, we are the ones who incubate the sucker.
• This law is about making access to overall women's healthcare available to all women by not allowing employers/insurance companies to decide not to provide it willy nilly.
• Keep government out of my religion, and keep government from inserting religion into decisions, personal or otherwise.
• This bill is requiring private (and public) entities to provide access/coverage to such healthcare - whether you like it or not, just because a college or hospital is "affiliated" with a church, does not change the fact that you are a private entity.  
• The Church or any other religious organization will not be paying for birth control, so give it a rest. The bill requires that employees have access to care specific to women's health - and insurance companies will pay for contraception for women who work for those entities that are exempt.
• The law was adopted so that all women can have access to affordable preventative medicine and to sustain overall women's health, which includes contraception.  Contraception lowers unwanted pregnancies, saves insurance companies money, and is better for women by lowering intensity of periods (therefore lowering instances of anemia and the pain - which may cause women to call in sick to work) and lowering the occurrence of ovarian cysts.
• The reason this was adopted was because treatments and medicine related to women's healthcare was NOT covered by all employers/insurance companies, and the government found that it was imperative for women to have access to this.  The government is there to protect the greater good and welfare of the public - and I don't see how women's healthcare is NOT something that will increase the greater good and welfare of women (and all citizens, for that matter, including those unborn children everyone is so worried about).  
• Why is it OK to have Viagara covered but not birth control? The government can make sure you can get it up, but not protect women from unwanted pregnancy? Even church affiliated organizations cover Viagara. I'm being dead serious - what the hell is the difference (and don't say birth control kills babies, because that is false)?
• If you needed a transplant, and your employer felt that such a procedure was against his/her religion, therefore insurance would not cover it, wouldn't you want someone to come in and protect your interests?  You wouldn't say get the government keep out of your life then.