Horrible. He gave her a kidney several years ago, now he wants it back because he's fallen out with this woman, even if it kills her, or an unaffordable 'cash equivalent'. I sincerely hope he doesn't win this case. It's her kidney now, he gave it to her without any kind of contract which said he could have it back some time. Just the same as he had to give his consent to have a kidney removed when it was living inside him, she should have to give her consent to have it removed, too, now it's living in her.
Of course, the MRAs are all over this, saying that he has a right to 'his' kidney, and that it doesn't matter whose body it resides in, as long as it was in his first. Some interesting parallels can be drawn from this to reproductive choice. A lot of MRAs seem to feel that men should have equal say on whether a woman has an abortion because it was his sperm that fertilized the egg. They seem to feel the same way about this. Of course I'm pro-choice and in line with that, I believe he had to choose what happened to his body when it was a part of him, and since it's a part of her body now, it's her choice, not his. And I would feel the same if the sexes of the people involved were reversed.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 'Man wants kidney back from cheating wife'.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11294
This case is Ok for MRAs as far as the article contains the follwoing sentence you forgot to mention: "He [ex-husband] says he is only suing Dawnell to get her to act reasonably in the divorce case, claiming she is restricting access to their children, aged eight, 11 and 14".
Well, given that we don't even have rights to body parts removed from us after surgery (ie - we don't have the right to profit financially if a surgeon removes a cancerous liver and then uses that liver to create a profitable cancer treatment), I can't see this guy winning.
Is this a lawsuit driven by sexism? If I gave my husband a kidney, then he cheated on and left me, I'd probably feel the way this man does.
Don't think I'd sue over it though.
Also, Slate has a great article on the subject: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/01/08/your-money-or-your-wife.aspx
From the Slate article:
You and your spouse become one flesh—in this case, literally.
No. No, you don't. Spice are two separate fleshes; two distinctly separate fleshes, each with bodily autonomy. I cannot believe that in 2009 there is still some doubt about this.
I think it relates to sexism in a way that our society believes that nothing a woman owns, including her body and what's in it, is truly hers. It all belongs to a man, be it her husband or the government that's run by men. And the fact that MRAs are defending this guy means there's plenty of sexism behind it.
Piggy-backing off of the repro rights point, I think the theme of sacrifice is prevalent here. Women are expected to sacrifice their bodies and their lives to give birth to children against their will. It's considered noble (although we get no respect for doing it and are in fact disrespected because we do), and if we make any other choice, we're selfish. If a woman gave a kidney to her husband and wanted it back during a divorce suit, the media, the MRAs, and society at large would consider her selfish for wanting it back. She would be expected to have given her kidney to her husband, because according our society's norms, marriage is all about women giving their bodies to their husbands. So, K. Rae, while you might feel the same way if you were in this situation, the reaction from society would be totally different. You're feelings would be undermined by the same people that are defending this man, all because of your gender.
And while I don't condone infidelity at all (I've seen first-hand how it can destroy a family), I can understand why this woman cheated on him. This guy is obviously a dick, and I don't think he suddenly turned into a dick right after he found out his wife was cheating. Once a dick, always a dick. A decent person, no matter how hurt or disrespected by a cheating spouse, wouldn't sue for a transplanted kidney. There is something seriously wrong with this man if he'd put any person's life on the line because of a grudge, especially someone he once loved and who is the mother of the three children he's looking to get custody for. "I want my kids, but I also want to be responsible for their mother's death!" What a keeper.
By law don't kidneys and body parts in general have no monetary value? I wonder how they came up with a cash equivelent to the value of the kidney? This man doesn't seem serious about wanting the kidney back but this story makes me feel kinda sick. He's basicaly asking, even if it is only symbolicaly, to kill her. It's a horrible way to try and get power of his ex wife. I don't think he has any standing but that he could even bring it up is scary. It also undermines what might be his legitamate concerns. Instead of treating his divorce and conern over his children with weight he is making a cazy claim.
Speaking from a strictly "property law" stand point, I feel like I've watched enough Judge Judy in my life to know that a gift is a gift is a gift, and even should the circumstances of a relationship change, its still a gift. Hence, engagement rings need not be returned if the wedding doesn't happen. It would seem to me that if this guy had no contractual agreement regarding the conditions of the donation, that it falls under this category.
Or I'm way off base. either way.
You are not off base, but you are more likely to win your case if you have evidence that the item is a gift. I knew someone years ago who gave his wife a ring and received from her a motorcycle for their wedding. Guess what was and was not considered community property when they divorced.
I think whether or not an engagement ring is a gift varies from state to state. Some states see it as a conditional gift and say that the woman can only keep it if they get married (even if they divorce later). If they don't get married, then the ring is legally the man's and the woman has to give it back. I've seen Judge Judy hand many an engagement ring back to an ex-fiance. But if the engagement ring is a real gift, then the man has no case for getting it back, even in a state that sees engagement rings as the men's property unless a marriage takes place. This is why it's not a good idea to propose on a gift-giving holiday or birthday. This is also a good reason why engagement rings just need to stop entirely.
So give him the cash equivalent. Given that trafficking in organs is illegal, that ought to net him a fair stint in the slammer. (Or, more leniently, since trafficking in organs is illegal, the cash equivalent is zero, and his debt is satisfied.)
I have nothing relevant to add, but I just wanted to tell you that I read this and I lol'd. Right on.
I'm not trying to be deliberately objectable or anything, but are we really sure this is a sexist lawsuit? I don't even think the man is serious, and this quote tells me so:
"He says he is only suing Dawnell to get her to act reasonably in the divorce case, claiming she is restricting access to their children, aged eight, 11 and 14."
Perhaps there is more to this story than what the article portrays? I think this "lawsuit" is more a statement than anything else.
I also think you were rude and condescending to principes and completely shut her down.I never claimed that anecdotal evidence is better than statistical data. However, I do think that there is a place for listening to individual women's voices when you're talking about feminism. If you can open your mind a little, anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence both have their bedroom furniture place. Anecdotal evidence needs to stay out of scientific journals, but on a feminist community blog it should be part of the discussion.