Mike Galanos, Robert Tepper and Sylvester Stallone know the truth about EC.
CNN anchor Mike Galanos knows better about your contraception choices than you. In fact, he knows better than the FDA too! In response to the recent decision allowing 17-year olds to buy emergency contraception without a prescription, Galanos took it upon himself to write an opinion piece on the issue, imploring to parents that they're being left in the dark while their irresponsible daughters make this "life-changing decision."
The whole piece is enough to make you irate, although my favorite line is:
"We are making it available to high school girls. We're enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out."
Ah yes, now we see what Galanos is really getting at: 17-year old women are not only not responsible enough to make decisions about their bodies, but will use EC as a means to have all The Sex they want and get away with it!
The random scenarios he poses are just as bad, completely stripping them of their agency (your boyfriends will make you take it!) while making them seem like reckless EC poppers who need "medical supervision" for a completely safe and, in fact, responsible choice when your regular contraception fails.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: That's why they call it Plan B, asshole. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13431
Galanos took it upon himself to write an opinion piece on the issue, imploring to parents that they're being left in the dark while their irresponsible daughters make this "life-changing decision."
Um, isn't preventing pregnancy exactly the opposite of life-changing?
I've never really gotten that whole "life changing decision thing" either. You know, I'm not pregnant, and I will continue to be un-pregnant if I take this medicine. How has my life changed?
That's exactly what my first thought was when I read "life-changing decision." What's life-changing is having a baby because you didn't have access to Plan B.
Wow, I was so thankful for the easy access to EC I had after I was raped. Granted, I was already 19, but the thought that EC access should be restricted to young girls is sickening to me after that experience (well, before too, but now it feels really personal). Whether teenage girls are having sex or not is absolutely none of this guy's business.
The easy way out, eh? Remember ladies, babies are punishment for allowing men to enter your shame cave.
Yup. Last night I was just reading one of Amps old posts at "Alas, a blog" about how the anti-choice crowd is more concerned with using fear of pregnancy to prevent women from having sex or punish them with forced pregnancy afterward.
http://tinyurl.com/jnpej
Of course, I'm sure there are some anti-choicers that really care about saving "babies", but he makes a pretty good case.
"Shame cave" FTW!
My thing about this whole argument and people saying teenagers aren't smart enough or aren't responsible enough to have access to plan B sans parental permission is 1. You don't trust your kid and 2. You obviously don't trust your parenting.
And if they're not responsible enough to take this pill how will they be responsible enough for.........A BABY?????
Do these people not understand economics? Plan B is about $50 a treatment where I live. With insurance (or just from PP), the Pill is almost free, as are condoms. It doesn't make SENSE to use Plan B as birth control. And, if someone DOES use it that way, they're wasting their money.
Exactly. I was on the pill, took antibiotics, had sex, then completely panicked. And I was floored at how expensive Plan B was. There is absolutely no way I would ever use it as my primary source of contraception. I'd be out hundreds of dollars a month!
For these types of conservatives, it's not about helping young women make responsible decisions in their lives; it's about maintaining the ideals of purity and trying to punish anyone (actually, any female) who doesn't conform to them.
What kind of teenager has that type of money to spend on a regular basis? Not to mention the side-effects of Plan B-- the nausea and cramps make for a pretty miserable 12 hours or so.
Anyway, I was very thankful for access to Plan B when, on the night my boyfriend and I lost our virginities together (we were 18), the condom broke and I was not forced to tell my parents about it.
Not to mention, when you take it, a lot of times it forces you to menstruate. I don't know about -you- guys, but I sure think I'd like to spend $50 to have my period all month long, after having all That Sex.
p.s. It's great if parents are supportive and help their daughters through such a hard choice, but I think there are way too many girls out there who wouldn't have that kind of support and maybe not even a choice not to have a baby if their parents found out. What about those girls?
I love how he completely neglects to acknowledge that high school seniors can legally drive, baby-sit younger people, are about to earn their high school diploma, have likely held a job, and, let's be honest, have likely given their virginity (based on the average age being 17). It sounds to me that they at least have the amount of personal responsibility to make a decision that will remedy a mistake. That they are old enough to have reign over their own bodies.
Are they still kids? Yes. Are they going to make mistakes? Of course. But that's why having Plan B available to them is crucial! They'll be able to remedy that mistake!
This article just stinks of a man wanting to have a woman's sexuality under someone else's control for as long as possible. Of wanting to deny a woman of control over her body. Of wanting to preserve her virginity and "purity" as long as possible, because as we all know there are too many people out there who value a girl based on her "purity". Because that represents her worth - and sexually active young girls have made a mistake that they should live with - with no way out. Because young women having sex is wrong.
Ah! Goddamnit just typing this makes me angry as hell!
I agree with you, but I think changing the phrasing of "have given their virginity" to "have had sex" would make your argument more effective and consistent with what you say at the end about "purity" =)
Fair enough, I hadn't thought of that..
I read that piece last night and was pleasantly surprised to see him get his ass handed to him in the comments. Usually the comments on CNN articles are not exactly a bastion of sanity and common sense, but the vast majority of the commenters to this article called him out on his bullshit.
I'm still boggling at this, though: "She still needs her parents in the tough times. But they will be cut out of a traumatic situation."
And this: "And the larger point is, society must help parents, not undermine their rights by keeping them in the dark on their child's life-changing decision."
Yes because this totally prevents teenagers from getting support from their parents. Don'tchaknow, it makes it completely illegal for teens to discuss their medical and contraceptive issues with mom and dad.
If a 17-year-old takes Plan B without telling her parents, it's not this regulation that's keeping the parents in the dark, nor is it society. SHE is the one keeping her parents in the dark, and she's probably doing it for a reason. If her relationship with her parents is such that she absolutely does not want them to know about this, no parental-notification law is going to keep her from asking an 18-year-old friend to buy it for her; the only thing this ruling changes about that particular situation is that now she has less of a time-consuming hassle to go through and the likelihood that the pill will WORK and prevent an ugly situation increases.
It is not "society's" responsibility to notify parents of every action their teenagers take. If the parents want to keep tabs on their teenagers' sexual activity to that extent, it's THEIR responsibility to either keep track of their kids themselves or (gasp!) foster a relationship where the teen feels like she can TELL her parents when something goes wrong. Of her own volition, even! And maybe even, I don't know, ask them for help and guidance?
Besides, not all parents actually have this burning desire to know the details of their daughters' sex lives. Bet you dollars to donuts that if I told my mom, "BRB, off to the drugstore to get some Plan B because the condom broke while I was screwing my boyfriend," her reaction would be something along the lines of "Wow, TMI." (Or maybe "don't bother, there's one in the medicine cabinet in case of emergencies." Or "Wait, boyfriend? I thought you were gay!")
...as if EC is as easy to buy as cough drops. EC is expensive! I don't know many 17 year olds that can plunk down $50 on the regular after they're done being "careless," as this man puts it.
Saying that teenagers are using EC as a primary form of as birth control is a huge assumption. How does Galanos know that those teens aren't using it as it was intended: as back-up because their primary BC failed?
If he's going to make an assertion like that, how about some evidence?
ACK! where to start on this!
First, what is "traumatic" about avoiding an unwanted pregnancy at 17!? Second, the issue of parents is tricky. Sure, they should know what is going on with their kids, but in the world we live in, kids do feel shameful about sex (because we keep slamming that into their heads) and would dread talking to their parents about this. I had a great "functional" family growing up and would die if I had to ask my mom to get Plan B.
Finally, I really do not understand how people can focus so much on the evils of Plan B, abortion, girls having sex, etc and not have concerns about our sexualized culture or The Purity Myth. We can do better things for our kids than denying them this pill.
The notion that 17-year-old adolescent females "will use EC as a means to have all The Sex they want and get away with it!" is clearly along the lines of what a young college-age student who is friends with my office's work-study student said to me recently. He did not like the feminist images and messages on my office door, and he started a conversation with me about "abortion." I was ready to stop talking with him long before he used personalized language and said,
"You shouldn't be able to have sex and not expect to be punished for it."
Some attitude from someone who thinks that "Life" is sacred. If his real idea is that pregnancy=punishment, then I fail to see all of the reverence and holiness in his politically fucked up viewpoint.
Also, he did not know that he was talking to someone who lived in a resort town with no way of getting to a real hospital, no car, no money in the 1980s and who, as a 19-year-old, had a condom break with her boyfriend. When I went to a doctor, because I had heard that there was a way to stop a pregnancy, the doctor smiled and said he would never give me that pill. He gloated and was happy that I might have to face a pregnancy, even though I explained that I was trying to be responsible. This was the summer of 1987. When I learned about EC becoming widely used, I was so happy for the young women to come after me.
It should be legal for all female people, no questions asked.
"You shouldn't be able to have sex and not expect to be punished for it."
Not to worry - every time I have sex, I tell my partner that I am a bad, bad girl who needs to be punished.
This comment literally made me LOL. I really needed that. Thanks.
LOL times infinity.
That made me laugh out loud. I'm glad I wasn't in my office when I read it. Thank you for this!
It stuns me to think that people actually believe these kinds of things. And that they actually want to enforce it on others.
It's almost amazing, how much of an obsession they can have with right versus wrong, and how the existence of gray is goes unacknowledged. I had a friend in high school who was obviously disapproving of my sexual choices (even though I was extremely responsible). She would make a point to become cold and distant whenever anything like that got brought up, and later when she finally gave it up she refused to tell me.
I am still friends with her, but that frigidness and difference in our treatment of these things has created a permanent barrier. I know we'll never be able to be very close because of our differences. The funny thing is that I wish it didn't have to be that way, but she is very stubborn about it.
I feel like it's a way of distinguishing two types of people. Open-minded and not-so-open-minded.
I'd have been tempted to ask him how boys get punished for it.
STDs, maybe.
But boys can't help themselves. They can't be punished for something they can't control! (sarcasm BTW)
Heartbreak.
/oh the humanity!
***sigh*** this is why we need ONE "age of majority" in this country. no more of this driving-at-16, EC-at-17, voting-at-18, drinking-at-21 crap. because i *do* believe that taking birth control/EC *can* in fact cause medical problems. (i am an example: i have epilepsy, and many anti-seizure medications interfere with the effectiveness of oral contraceptives. i have to be super-monitored by my gyno and my neurologist to get the right balance of meds. perversely, i have to also take prenatal vitamins because if i did get pregnant, the anti-seizure drug has a higher risk of birth defects.) and i do think it's not OK that a parent who is still responsible for their child's health and well-being might find themselves in a situation in which their child has procured a medication which is unsafe for them to take, or that their parents don't believe is appropriate (perhaps a vaccine of some kind), and hasn't told their parents for whatever reason.
based on what we know of human development, we roughly approximate that most people reach the point at which they can competently make decisions and care for themselves around their 18th birthdays. that might be late for many people, but there are plenty of people that aren't prepared for adulthood by that point. that would be true for any reasonable "age of majority" we chose. i think we need to *pick one point*, and after that point, then one can enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. before that, one's parents or legal guardians are in charge.
all this being said, this dude is still a fearmongering tool who obviously thinks girls are whores. ergh.
It seems like people of all ages should enjoy as many rights and freedoms as possible. Why set some arbitrary age and say everyone younger's a slave to their parents? This seems like regress, not progress.
I grew up in a conservative family and certainly maintain my belief in individual freedom. I think that people are responsible for their own actions, and objects (like guns) or substances (like plan B) are inanimate powerless things that aren't going to cause deaths or sex or anything else for that matter. If you don't want YOUR daughter having sex and taking birth control, keep and eye on her and don't let her, that's your kid/problem (she probably will anyway if she wants, but that's beside the point). I don't understand how Republicans can argue that it's not the governments job to manage FIRE ARMS for fucks sake (and maybe it's not, who cares), but not a pill that keeps people from getting pregnant. It's so backwards, so insane, and so typical it's not surprising that they're a bunch of hillbillies. I know I shouldn't call people hillbillies (hillpeople?) but seriously, there is no more fitting insult.
Um, I find it highly offensive that you just claimed that all Republicans are "hillbillies". How prejudiced against a group of people can you get? And not to mention that you called your own family that...
Well, MY family is entirely conservative. I am not, but they all are. And all of them are more successful than God himself, educated, intelligent, and strong people. Their morals guide them in life, but they are not the kind of people to tell others that their morals are wrong. They are Catholic, yes, but they are the furthest thing from a hillbilly in the world. Just because they identify as conservative does not mean they are all pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-bibles-in-schools.
I can't believe that you honestly could categorize an entire group of people in that way, and it just shows your ignorance. One of the things that I love about these blogs is that a common theme is to avoid defining a person by their interests, their orientation, or their gender. You clearly are categorizing people by their political views, and frankly the fact that you made that statement that all republicans are hillbillies completely disgusts me.
Go to a Church and meet those "hillbillies". Get off your moral high-horse.
I'm not saying calling people hillbillies is a good thing. However, conservative generally means social conservative these days. Social conservatives are generally against those things. Just because your family isn't doesn't mean a really large chunk of the group isn't.
So being a social conservative means you're a hillbilly? You're still saying the exact same thing feminanimal said.
What you're saying is still ridiculous, elitist, and completely unfair. Who on earth has the rights to categorize such a broad group as idiots? Honestly this is completely ridiculous - I thought this website stands against this kind of dialogue because it does not acknowledge the gray area.
The only thing I'm hearing from this is black and white. Liberal = good, conservative = evil.
I understand that they stand against a lot of things we are for, but that is NO excuse to insinuate that they are all uncultured, uneducated, and unintelligent people.
If someone had said something along the lines of, "all lesbians are butch" the outcry would have been enormous, as it SHOULD be against something that is so terribly generalizing and unfair. Well, I don't really understand why saying "all republicans are hillbillies" doesn't get the same response.
Please don't tell me I am the only one to see this. I can't stand to stay on this site if we continue to pretend we are the elite, good ones and conservative ones are the evil ones. We're doing the exact same thing they do - and that MAKES US NO BETTER.
God. It all spawns from just a whole bunch of hatred.
The truth is that saying all Republicans are "hillbillies" is more of an insult to "hillbillies" than it is to Republicans.
I find no fault in people who live in rural areas, are poor, or have a low education level. Plenty of these so-called "hillbillies" are honest, compassionate, good people.
On the other hand, anyone who actively advocates for conservative social and political policies is causing unnecessary suffering because these policies are intolerant, suppress individual choice, etc.
I'm not saying all Republicans are bad people; I have Republican friends. But I like them *despite* the fact they are Republican. Being conservative is nothing to be proud of.
There is nothing at all wrong, on the other hand, with being a so-called "hillbilly."
I find it highly offensive that you think just because someone is successful and educated it necessarily makes them better than 'hillbillies'.
Hillbilly: "an unsophisticated country person".
So... Yes. I do.
Honestly I'm sick of this double standard we have. You clearly think you're above all conservatives.
This is bigotry. I'm sick of it.
No, liking your own political opinion better than someone else's is not bigotry. Especially when they want to deny me and my friends our civil rights. However, I don't hold with using classist insults like hillbilly.
Most of my family are "unsophisticated country people," and I would elaborate on what I think about you, but then my comment would be deleted.
I'm glad to see people here commenting on how stupid this "EC as birth control" argument is... Hmmm... a condom for under a dollar, or Plan B for $30-50, which might make you feel nauseous in the bargain? Tough choice... not.
On another note, I got Plan B for the first time a few years ago when I was 17, and was SO grateful that in California you could go get a prescription right at certain drugstores and get your pill almost immediately, without parental notification.
I took the pills, didn't get pregnant, learned my lesson about always keeping condoms on hand, and went on with my life. It was a lesson in responsibility, and nothing more... certainly not "traumatic" in any way. For me, at least. What WOULD have been traumatic is doing nothing and possibly getting pregnant!
I agree with all of you. This guy has no idea what he is talking about. Yes, I would prefer that my teen daughter come to me about these issues (this isn't hypothetical, I have a daughter who is passed her teens...), but if she felt she couldn't, I hope she would have the sense to go and get Plan B.
Interestingly, our family pediatrician asked parents to sign a waiver when the kids were about 15 so that they could stop by alone if needed. They said it would be more convenient if they needed an allergy shot or something like that. But the obvious subtext was that if the teen needed to see a doctor for whatever reason, they could do so. I signed the waiver. I'm not one to keep medical care away from my child.
I've only seen one half-sensible objection to plan B for teens. A pharmacist wrote in to a newspaper and said that some men would come in and buy plan B for the daughters that they were sexually abusing (he wasn't speculating--he indicated that the men said something that implicated them). I understand that this could happen. But with plan B, the victim doesn't have to be pregnant with daddy's sperm!
I've heard that arguement but then the onus is still on the girl. What they aren't thinking is that these men are abusing these girls anyway and it shouldn't be like, oh if they get pregnant then they would at least be caught. If they heard something like that they should have a duty to report as they heard something that implies inappropriate sexual abuse. It's an issue that sounds good and horrifying to argue against Planned B, but again the arguemnt is about 17 year olds getting it, not completely adult males who would have access to it anyway.
I just want to scream! How can they not see that taking EC is a VERY responsible thing to do!!!
ARGH. His examples aren't even any good. Needing parental consent for a piercing or tattoo is more akin to needing parental consent to have sex in the first place, which you don't. What he's proposing is, essentially, leaving things as they are on that end (the equivalent of allowing teens to get piercings and tattoos without parental consent) but then making that same kid go to his or her parents before he or she will be given medical treatment to correct a botched procedure. Because THAT'LL show our kids how much we love them!
OT: Vanessa you said a 17-year-old woman when talking about birth control but if you were writing about another topic such as statutory rape I'm sure you would've said 17-year-old GIRL.
To me and many others a 17-year old isn't a man or a woman but I guess they can be depending on the argument you are trying to make.
How about citing an example?
I don't think labeling a 17-year-old a woman as opposed to a girl or vice versa is inaccurate. I've thought about this a lot, and it's very difficult for me to draw the line between "girl" and "woman" without reducing crossing that line to biological functions (e.g., menstruation). I mean, I feel uncomfortable calling a 14-year-old mother a girl. If she has a kid, she's a woman. But that means I'm conflating being biologically able to reproduce with womanhood, which also makes me feel uncomfortable, because that means I'm leaving out a group of women who can't become pregnant. Until there's an equivalent to "guy" to refer to teenage females, I suppose "woman" or "girl" could apply here.
Um, I totally took Plan B when I was 17 and my parents never knew about it. And that was 6 years ago. I went to the local teen clinic, got my prescription, and walked out with the pills. It took less than an hour.
This law hasn't really caused any drastic changes, except now you don't have to go to a PP or teen clinic to do what you need to do. If teens are determined and know where to go, they can and will do whatever they need to.
Because I'm sure that every female 17 yo has $40 to drop each time she has unprotected sex.
And, don't forget, if there's a chance of sperm getting through, she may b exposure to STDs, there's another $100+ on tests.
Really, Galanos, I think that most of these women (17 yos included), if knowledgable enough about plan B, will be using cheap condoms first.
(disclaimer, I'm using the prices I've been charged)
Well, hey, these FEMALES....they HAVE to be PUNISHED for having had SEX.
I supposed Galanos think RAPE victims shouldn't have access to Plan B, either.
Personally, I don't think 17 year olds should be having sex, but I am not going to tell others how to live their lives. I certainly don't believe a 17 year old girl should be pregnant, especially with a child she doesn't want.
I feel uncomfortable calling a 14-year-old mother a girl. If she has a kid, she's a woman.
A 14 year old IS a girl. She's a CHILD.
A 14 year old mother is a tragedy.
"life-changing decision."
I didn't see anyone make this point above, so I thought I'd add that this phrasing -- which the very first comments call out as non-sensical -- is code. The usual suspects insist, in the face of much scientific evidence to the contrary, that Plan B will disrupt an existing pregnancy. they can't wrap their brains around the fact that you take it *after* sex -- if it prevents pregnancy after the fact it *must* be an abortion.
So "life-changing" is about abortion, not contraception, and it's how the anti-choicers roll.
Not enough coffee on board; to clarify:
Plan B prevents ovulation. It may prevent fertilization. There is increasing evidence that it does not, ever, prevent implantation, but Barr Labs, the manufacturer, does allow for the possibility that the drug may successfully prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation. For hard-line anti-choicers, a fertilized egg is a "person," so anything that interferes with implantation is no less an abortion than an abortion at 24 weeks.
I'm of the opinion that even if there were incontrovertible proof that Plan B can never prevent implantation it wouldn't make a difference, it's the "after sex" part that the anti-choicers can't get behind, for all the shaming, sex loathing, woman-hating reasons brilliantly outlined above.
The point being only that "life changing" is a nod to the folks who can't or won't tell the difference between Plan B and abortion.
Let me just start off by saying that the ideal here would be for all adults to be able to have the freedom to make an informed decision about anything that affects their body.
As for the issue of contraception, understand that the answer to this very thorny issue is not located in the "pro-choice" or the "anti-choice" camp. The problem with both of these opinion systems is that they make a grievous assumption: that some people don't want to get pregnant. Actually, everyone wants to get pregnant, but they are prevented from experiencing the joy of parenthood by the evils of society.
In today's society, a 14-year-old mother is, as another poster put it, a "tragedy". Well wake up. Creating another human being that loves you unconditionally means unconditional joy, no less. The problem is that the self interferes, and wants what the self calls "better".
To clarify: being president of a corporation is not good; having money is not good; being successful is not good; learning the ways of this world through school is not good. The prevalence of fools that try to attain these things, ignorant of what they really are, is not proof to the contrary. Yes, I'm universally condemning the goals of feminism, but also the goals of power (anti-feminism).
While the issue may appear to be more difficult in the case of rape or unwanted pregnancy, it is not so. Both sides of the issue run dangerously close to baby hatred, and all people should stop and contemplate their assumptions on this issue. All in all, the answer to this issue is not of this world.
Are you serious? You honestly think that people can't know their own minds as to whether they want children?
Perhaps you haven't considered the flaws inherent in claiming, "You don't really think that, you've just been brainwashed by society". First of all, it can be applied to damn near anything someone doesn't like. Second, you too have been influenced by society; who are you to stand up and say that you have somehow managed to overcome all that and can now dictate to the rest of us what we truly feel? Third and most important, it's discounting others' arguments by denying their very capacity to make a reasoned argument -- and if that's not dehumanizing, I don't know what is.
And that's why mothers never abuse their children, or abandon them, or neglect them, or kill them. Oh wait, that's not true.
Motherhood can be a joy. It can also be a crushing burden. For most, it's both -- but it's definitely NOT "unconditional joy".
Renee of Womanist Musings puts it better than I can.
I DON"T WANT TO GET PREGNANT!!! I have my dogs that give me unconditional love. I love myself. I have friends and family that love me. I don't need a baby because I am trying to fill some kind of hole. Having a baby because you want to receive unconditional love from something is actually a really shitty reason for having a baby. Guess what? Kids may love their parents no matter what (though this is not necessarily true) but they have a lot of needs and demands. There will also be a ton of things about their parents kids don't like. Also, just because you have someone that loves you does not mean you will also have joy. Especially if you are 14 and have kids and follow your line of belief that money and success and school are bad so you have nothing to feed your kids with.
I'm kinda shocked the original post didn't pick up on this.
"We are making it available to high school girls. We're enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out."
The issue with that quote isn't simply that it communicates the idea that teens will use birth control methods to enable having sex. That's just dumb and a played out argument already
The *real* sickening thing here is that Galanos is effectively saying that teens shouldn't have access to birth control because it's an easy way out and teens need to be punished with pregnancy for having sex.
So the message here is that we need control over women's bodies for the sake of punishment for failure to uphold a moral code. Ugh.
Actually, everyone wants to get pregnant...
Creating another human being that loves you unconditionally means unconditional joy, no less.
LOL ^ infinity
Whoops, that was meant to go to http://openid.aol.com/pointless011.
Anyway, ShifterCat got to it first.
I remember when I was a teenager and had sex for the first time with my boyfriend of two years. I was not on b-control and we didn't use protection and I knew it was a bad decision but was really scared of getting pregnant. Scared enough that I told my mom and we went and got the equivalent of plan b from a drugstore. I can just imagine how horrible it would have been for me if I would have had a less understanding mother or one who would not have helped me. Also, if I had not had a mom I don't think I could have gotten the nerve to go to a dad for help getting it. I still resent that my privacy had to be discarded (I really did not want to have to go to my mother either) to obtain a pill to make sure I didn't get pregnant but it could have been a lot worse and for many girls I am sure it is.
This guy's argument is totally convulouted.
For one thing, he seem to think that society allowing teen girls to get Plan B is more harmful than society allowing him to have his own TV show. Clearly, he's the only person oblivious to this irony.
He should worry about the risks of using his national platform to influence our vulnerable children. Do we really need more kids growing up who think evidence isn't important for supporting an argument? More kids who think that obsolete sexual stereotypes from the 19th century still possess some coherence in today's world? More kids who think it's OK to transparently grandstand on divisive cultural issues in order to further one's own career?
I wish Mike Galanos's parents had taught him more about personal reponsibility.