Note: This is distilled from a blog post I made today and some of the comments in response.
When it comes to the debate over women’s equality, some people seem to believe that unless we say simply “equality,” and not “women’s equality,” we’re not really talking about equality at all, but “special rights.” It’s an interesting argument, because the premise of such is that women are not people, that gays are not people, that any group that is a subset of people is not in fact comprised of people, just that subset.
Let me back up a moment.
Whenever I hear “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” I always hear the joke answer-chorus in my head:
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
Had a very shiny nose [like a lightbulb]
And if you ever saw it
You would even say it glows [like a lightbulb]
I suggest to the people who hear “women’s equality” or some such thing, and hear in their minds “special rights for women,” that maybe they try this little exercise: Whenever you hear someone talk about how their rights are compromised or diminished or undermined, you can hum your own answer chorus, And they are people, too.
I know, I’m going against the orthodoxy here. Folks on the right attacked “identity politics,” and many on the left have bought into that tag and all the baggage associated with it: the idea that somehow if people have differences, and we recognize these differences, then somehow we’re trying to designate “special rights” or some such thing. We must be a melting pot. Everything must be homogenized — preferably into the form and standards of the dominant group — for anything to be acceptable.
Yet we don’t have a melting pot in this country. It’s more like a stew. Everything flavors everything else to some extent, but a potato is still a potato, and a carrot is still a carrot.
While I would agree that “identity politics,” like any political vein, can get out of hand and lead to seeing ghosts of oppression everywhere, there’s something to be said for honoring and respecting differences — without denying all these myriad peoples, groups, cultures, etc. their basic humanity.
And yet we are now asked by so many — mainly people who enjoy some measure of the privileges of the established dominant hierarchy — to ignore those differences, because it’s really bad to be different, because then you are saying that the only way to equal rights is to designate special rights, and that’s just unpalatable.
Myself, I don’t buy it.
There are subsets of our culture that encounter challenges, discrimination, problems, etc. that are rather unique to their demographic. Young boys, for example, are being raised in a combination of coddling environments where “self-esteem” must not be diminished by anybody, especially a teacher or coach, while at the same time are raised on a form of popular media entertainment that is anti-social at best: first-person shooter video games. To me that’s a recipe for disaster. What kind of monsters will some of these boys grow up to be? Spoiled, aroused by violence, inexperienced at social interactions, especially conflict resolution.
Yet would we be served by pretending that it’s not primarily boys who enjoy these hyper-violent games featuring cop killing, mass murder and lots of graphic blood and gore? I don’t think so. Yet I also do not believe that addressing this as a boys’ issue would be somehow allocating them “special rights,” either!
Note: I do not mean to make blanket assertions about all boys, but only use a subject I’ve heard raised elsewhere (by conservatives like Hoffman, for example) as another example of how attention to a specific demographic’s grievances or problems is justified <u>and just</u>. In other words, my point is to say that this isn’t just an argument to address conventionally liberal political positions — it applies to conventional (and current) conservative positions as well.
I feel the same is true for an issue like reproductive rights for women. If it helps these diversiphobic-politics types, we could say:
The state should not have any power to force a woman or man to get pregnant, remain pregnant or terminate pregnancy.
Does that make it better? To me it just sounds silly. Maybe in a few years, when men start carrying in-vitro children (and I expect someday it will happen, if we don’t manage to blow ourselves up first), such language would make sense.
But today, here and now, the fundamental right of sovereignty over ones own body is being challenged and denied to women in several areas. Men are not under the same kind of legislative and litigious assault. Are women demanding “special rights” when demanding only what everyone else enjoys as a right?
And so regarding the question, Why should women get special rights?…
What if we flip around the entire question of “special rights” and ask, instead:
Which basic human rights should be denied to women?
It’s the same question, phrased from the opposite side of the coin. And it reveals the premise of those who say “women’s equality” would mean “special rights”: that women are not people, too.
* applauds *
No time just now – but excellent writing!
I find this a fascinating way of putting things into words. How very interesting to say the least. I am glad I am part of stew…bs…just kidding. I love peas, can I be one please…
You may have just made a point that even the green beans can enjoy in being stewed with…as long as you give some of them viagra to grow with, like fertilizer, you know..:o)…just kidding again..
Anyhow, I just wanted to be a little funny here tonight. You have a good point and thought.
Great diary, well written and very thoughtful. I’m new here so I don’t have mojo to give 🙁
So I’ll just have to say: Recommended!
issue here.
“The state should not have any power to force a woman or man to get pregnant, remain pregnant or terminate pregnancy.”
Let me start by saying that I believe that the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is absolute. A fetus has no “right” to impose a “duty” on a “host”. That includes a potentially “viable” fetus . . . although I also believe that if the pregnancy can be terminated by live birth without additional threat to the mother only that means of termination should be permitted. The right to terminate a pregnancy does not include a right to insist that a viable fetus be killed. The right to abortion derives from self ownership, not from ownership of the fetus. But to the subject:
At what point does the putative father have a right to renounce his responsibility/obligation? Up to (or at) what point may he say “I chose to terminate any present or future duty to or responsibility for this fetus”? I do not mean by this question to imply that the father has any right to either compel or prevent an abortion. There is no such right. But should not a man have a right to “terminate” his relationship to a fetus, and any future obligations that derive therefrom?
A man’s rights to renounce responsibility end when he makes a conscious decision to have sex, even if he’s taken means to prevent pregnancy. If a pregnancy results, and the woman decides to carry to term, he can and should be held liable for the resulting child. Period. The best interests of the child come first.
that “A [wo]man’s rights to renounce responsibility end when [s]he makes a conscious decision to have sex, even if [s]he’s taken means to prevent pregnancy.”
Yes, but probably not in the way you intend. She’s responsible for taking care of any child she carries to term, and she’s responsible for taking care of the abortion if that’s her choice. Before she has sex, she has to consider the consequences, and it’s much more personal to her because her body is directly involved.
There is a fundamental biological difference here, because a woman’s body is at stake when there’s a pregnancy, and she’s the only person who can make the final decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. The man has no rights in that decision, though of course if they have a healthy relationship, his wishes will enter into the decision that she makes.
for taking care of any child she carries to term”
So adoption is not an option? Or is it an option for her, but not for him?
I agree that the man has no right to force either an abortion or a continued pregnancy, but suggest that for the same reasons of underlying “rights” the woman has no right to force child support. If the man can be forced to support then why cannot the woman can be forced to bear by the same logic . . . both are consequences of the decision to have sex in the first place.
I favor “choice” for both, rather than choice for neither, and have grave difficulty with choice for one, but not the other. Why should a woman’s choice not to be a mother be more valid, or more protected, than a man’s choice not to be a father?
The issue here, I believe, is continued discrimination against women in the workplace – lower wages for the same amount of work, etc, etc. This, often, places an unfair burden on a single mother. This is even more pronounced because she must take time off work for maternity leave.
I agree with you in principle, but I think there still must be some sort of statute to deal with abandonment, and basic equality issues still need to be addressed.
In short, the increased obligation of the male in these situations seems to flow from the artificially increased social and economic standing of the male, due to institutional/societal sexism. If both (primary?) sexes were equal, then this would, I feel, vanish.
I can’t quite recall where I read this, so it would be great if someone who knows more about this can flesh it out further, but weren’t so-called “deadbeat dad” laws requiring that fathers support their children in part emerged as a result of the reduction of welfare benefits to single mothers?
I have no idea where to find such data, but I do recall hearing that connection suggested. That would be a rich morsel to chew on.
by which a fetus can impose 20 years of obligation on the father, but cannot impose 9 months of obligation on the mother?
I believe it is incorrect to conflate termination of pregnancy with child abandonment . . . that is an argument which cuts both ways. If mother and father agree to, and do, produce a child then they both have undertaken a support obligation to that child . . . the scope and distribution (between them) of that obligation is socially judicable. There are four “parties” involved: the mother, the father, the child, and “society” (acting on behalf of the child). If you argue, as a previous poster has, that such an “agreement” (enforceable on the father, beneficial to the fetus/child) was entered when the mother and father agreed to have sex then there is also an agreement enforceable on the mother beneficial to the fetus, and you have opened wide the door to a social “right” to prohibit abortion (to enforce a support duty on the mother).
I don’t believe that we want to go there. I don’t believe we want to say that there is an irrevocable implied contract (initiated and entered into by a consensual sex act) between the father and any fetus/child because if we do then there is also an implied contract between the mother and the fetus/child initiated by the same consensual act. We justify a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy by asserting that there is no such contract or duty. We cannot then turn around and say “oh, but there is for him“.
At least not if we want to talk about and argue for “equal rights” . . .
I suggest you go back and re-read my comment. I agree with you. But I’m not conflating anything, merely noting that there are issues here that you completely ignore. I would argue the following:
If the man disavows his participation in the child-rearing process while the woman is still capable of getting an abortion, he has no obligation. The woman may still make a sensible, informed economic and moral decision. If, however, he waits until after the woman can no longer get an abortion to disavow his participation, then he is still obligated to provide support. The moral mechanism here is the same as the moral mechanism that binds the woman to the child – he shares part of the responsibility for bringing it into the world and, thus, part of the obligation of supporting it. It’s an implied contract on his part that he is attempting to violate. Likewise, if the woman decides she no longer wishes to participate, the same result applies. The amount of support must, of course, be proportionally scaled based on income.
and hope it was clear that I am not arguing against child support equitably distributed between the parents. Actually having a child implies long term obligation for both the mother and father (although questions of transfer of responsibility through adoption remain). Fathers cannot simply abandon their children. Neither can mothers.
My comments were directed to that time during pregnancy during which most of us seem to agree that a woman has a right to terminate the pregnancy because she has no duty to the fetus. During that time, I suggest, the man involved has the same right to terminate . . . not the pregnancy, of course, but any present or subsequent duty associated with it. I’d say, as a matter of equity, that he would be bound to pay (a share of) any costs involved.
My apology if I was not clear about that . . .
You weren’t, entirely. Or perhaps I wasn’t – I’ve seen a lot of “I should be able to ditch my kids any time I want and child support is evil womanly coercion” arguments that started off quite a lot like yours. (Usually from the really nutty sort of Libertarian – IE, fanatical Objectivists) However, your conclusion seems reasonable, as does your argument. I think there’s still a power/rights imbalance here somewhere (in that if the man walks out, the woman must raise the kid on her own or abort or put it up for adoption; but if the woman aborts, the man has no consequences or tough choices), but I’m not sure it can be resolved.
Of course, this overshadows the primary issue here, the elephant sitting patiently in the corner waiting for its turn in the spotlight.
Birth control.
What this whole problem stems from is a lack of education about and availability of proper, reliable birth control methods. Add that to social factors that attempt to reduce the use of birth control (eg, the assorted excuses employed, usually by men, to avoid condoms), and you have the makings of a right mess. Ideally, no conception would occur unless both parents had agreed to have a child, and taken reasonable steps to ensure their economic security while raising a child. I think the Democrats down there, and NDP up here (if it ever becomes necessary) need to make this a massive, vital campaign issue.
Child support is not about the biological “parents,” it’s about the child. In most if not all states in the US (I don’t know about outside the US), that’s codified into law. It’s not an issue of rights for either parent.
When a man and a woman have sex, a child is a possible result. Both biological contributors are financially responsible for that child, regardless of what happens to their relationship. That’s equal and fair.
Because a woman’s body is involved in the choice of whether or not to have an abortion (or choose adoption after carrying to term), that’s her decision and her decision alone. This is completely separate from the child support issue.
It is nonsensical to allow a man to opt out for his own convenience, against the interests of the resulting child. If he didn’t want to face up to that responsibility, he shouldn’t have had sex. To call such a legal cop-out a “choice” is an insult to the concept. It makes absolutely no sense. A child is not property to be surrendered when it’s no longer wanted–a child is a person. Men have responsibility for their sexual choices.
If you want to really get this, turn this around. If the child support issue is a separate one in your mind, then do you support the right of women to opt out of child support at any time, forcing the man to choose between raising the child alone or putting it up for adoption? Really, given the propensity of some men to run away from responsibility as fast as they can, does this question even make any sense? It’s absurd.
I totally agree with you. While I do believe that ideally the father should have input into the woman’s choice to bear a child or have an abortion, the final choice belongs to the woman whose body and life will be irrevocably effected by her decision. The reason society (often unsuccessfully) tries to get fathers to pay child support is that if they don’t we all pay for it. Otherwise we would have to deal with women and children starving in the streets.
Furthermore, the folks who want to end abortions are the same people who will also demand that men not only pay child support but marry the mother and stay married. If they can, they will make birth control illegal again and both men an women will denied reproductive freedom. And, of course, in vitro fertilization will also be outlawed.
In the long run, Democrats are only playing into the hands of the fundamentalists if they use this issue as a bargaining chip.
Wait, wait, back up a second. “If they don’t, we all pay for it.” So why don’t we all pay for it? After all, all of society benefits when children are raised healthy. They’re able to devote more time and energy to their education, which makes them more knowledgeable, etc…
I was trying to discuss the situation in the U.S. as it is–not saying I like the situation. Personally, I’d like to see national health care that would help women when they are pregnant and programs to help single mothers with children. When will that happen here–when hell freezes over?
When Democrats decide they have the balls to push for it would be my guess.
The problem here is that, morally, it’s a sticky situation. Women have control over their body – no real progressive can dispute that – so they’re the only people who should be permitted to decide whether or not they can/should have an abortion. But even with birth control, mistakes can happen. And what if one happens and the woman wants to have the child and the man doesn’t? The man can’t decide to have the child if the woman doesn’t want to, after all…
I suppose one could argue that the power rests with the woman here because she’s the one taking on the risks associated with childbirth. But it still seems morally problematic if the man doesn’t want the child and the woman does. I think the only possible sensible solution is mandatory paid maternity leave and state support for young children, so that either parent could (if they want) raise the child alone without undue economic burden. However, this is predicated on many other things – equal economic opportunity for men and women, universal access to and education about birth control and abortion, universal health care…
It’s complicated. I can’t see any clear solution.
I can’t answer the question in the poll. When we deny one human being their rights we deny and diminish all.
Dubya dances with torture and rendition (a primer on non-derogable human rights)
The problem with identity politics is that it almost always casts those outside the identity group in the most negative possible light possible, often on the flimsiest of bases.
For instance:
Young boys, for example, are being raised in a combination of coddling environments where “self-esteem” must not be diminished by anybody, especially a teacher or coach, while at the same time are raised on a form of popular media entertainment that is anti-social at best: first-person shooter video games… What kind of monsters will some of these boys grow up to be?
Outside a narrow privileged layer of society, deepest suburbia where everyone is privileged, not just males, this assumption that boys are somehow coddled and shielded from the consequences of life and their own actions is unlikely at best. In mill towns like the one I grew up in you learn early as a boy that you are entirely on your own, that no one is there to protect or even help you, that you best fight your own battles, and it’s root hog or die. The problem with identity politics is that it says to those not of the identity group that if your life, your experience don’t fit the official template, then your life and experience are false, that you are either too stupid to see it or you are a liar. That hardly builds a course to social solidarity and social progress.
It seems to me that you’re taking issue with the rhetoric that people who advocate certain more strident forms of identity politics employ, rather than identity politics itself. Either that or you’re slaying a straw man.
Should you be prohibited from addressing any problems that might be particular to the circumstances of which you speak? Must we all just close our eyes and say some equality for all mantra, while pretending that everybody isn’t different?
I do not believe that we have to deny diversity in order to find rights we have in common. I don’t think that we should ignore particular injustices because either the advocates of those particular folks use unfair rhetoric or because if you address one problem you’re being unfair by not addressing someone else’s. I don’t believe we should ignore specific discriminations simply because the discrimination is particular and, yes, discriminatory.
Equal rights and protections for all is the idea, yes. But to address the particular failings in its application, we have to get particular, don’t we?
Having equal rights does not mean that the application of those rights will be the same. Choosing (or not) to have an abortion is not a meaningful “right” for me, choosing what drugs to take, or what anti-aging “supplements” to eat, is. The right to those choices come from a common root . . . self ownership and control of one’s own body, without government interference. Likewise freedom of religion, freedom to read and think what one wants, and freedom to do as one wishes with consenting adults in one’s own home all derive from the same privacy right, although each of us will exercise that right in different ways.
I don’t want my “rights” to be particular privilege granted to my particular “kind”. I want to exercise my rights as specific application of general rights possessed by everyone, to be exercised by each individual as appropriate to their own desires and circumstance. So I don’t perceive an issue of “women’s rights” at all . . . I’d go so far as to say there are none. There are “only” human rights, and I will not surrender any of them, or suffer the denial of them to anyone else because of gender, or race, or any other accident of birth.
Which means, of course, that on some days I find myself arguing with almost everyone . . .
I don’t see why. It sounds like a perfectly sensible position to me!
Very well done! You speak clearly to the heart and soul of it to me. Really, you should be very proud of this work. Now let’s send it out to all those in Dem positions that influence the parties stance, so they can see how clearly and plainly it can be said.
Or if you run for office, I’ll vote for you and work on your campaigne.
Pity there is no space on a poll click for snark. I looked at the poll, and realised there was no way I could vote – which I guess was the point; but was disturbed to see the vote for ‘christians’. I can only think it a snark, as the right wing extremists are doing so much harm – but for me, it doesn’t work without some comment confirming it’s snarkiness (is that a word?). I will not call the right wing extremists ‘christian’. I am not christian, but know many christians who try to live by the beatitudes, rather than the vengeful stuff of the old testaments. I can imagine feeling very hurt by that poll result if I were christian.
Denying anyone their humanity diminishes all of us – as someone else above has said.
Excellent Media Girl. “Same” is a horrific interpretation of the word “Equal”.
The thing with identity politics is that while I agree that it’s necessary to recognize the differences among various categories/classes of people, it is perhaps also necessary that we do not overemphasize, and in effect, reify these categories (creating identity ghettos).
Rather, the task is to recognize that these differences are effects of structural relations of power and identify the mechanisms through which these differences are produced.
…is how the rights of 53% of the population became a “special interest.”
I think part of the answer (although I’m not sure it’s necessarilly the most important one) to this question might take us back to the issue of language — that whole disconnect between the use of derogatary expressions referring to female anatomy. When repeated often enough, it allows people to naturalize a mode of thinking in which references to female anatomy are denormalized (e.g., “pussy” or “lack of balls” to refer to cowardice). In repeatedly doing this (and obscuring/denying the inherent sexism in these phrases), one ends up in a situation wherein a particular (male) position can be thought of as the norm, and hence so-called “women’s issues” are relegated to a place outside the norm — “special” interests. In other words, using “pussy” as a derogatory expression and dismissing women as “special interests” are very much connected.
So I guess what I’m saying here is that the whole problem of language isn’t merely whether words per se are offensive or not , whether complaining about them is PC policing or not (indeed focusing on these only further obscures the issue).
I’ve seen analyses of language and bias, but not in terms of general epithets leading directly to attitudes of women as second-class citizens.
My own sense is that many liberal men (mostly men, though some women, too) feel kind of like “I gave at the office.” Why should they have to deal with more women’s shit when they’d already signed on to back choice?
That was the subtext I heard in many responses in threads on DKos and elsewhere. The pie incident merely had a higher density than usual.
But I think to a large degree it was the loud declaration of I’m already pro-choice! What the fuck else do you broads want?! that drove a lot of women away. I know that’s what drove me away.
I’ve not written off that place. But it’s moved down a few notches on my list of places to visit and in which to participate. It just left me with a bad feeling.
The atmosphere is much better here. That’s what struck me when I joined a while back, and it seems even moreso now. I wouldn’t say DKos has become as bad as DU, but the stridency levels have come close at times.
How did I get on this subject? sigh
Back on topic … I don’t blame men for the circumstances, nor do I harbor a lot of anger (though some wingnuts really do make my blood burn). I see the “problem” as being our culture in general. It has a tide that always flows towards reinforcing male privileges. It’s something conscious, self-aware people can resist, deconstruct, oppose, mock, etc. But it’s there all the same. Nobody’s to blame, except when it comes to their own actions.
And I would agree, the words, the femiphobia in our culture (as in fear of femininity in men, not fear of women), all play into it.
Here’s an exercise: Next time you see Bush in a summit of some sort, watch the body language. He’s always playing to make the other guy out to be his bitch. It’s in his walk, how he shakes hands, how he walks with a national leader down a hallway….He’s asserting alpha male dominance in body language. He did it with Putin, even to the point of driving the car. Did Vladimir realize he was being feminized on international television? He did it to Blair. Blair still is the bitch in that relationship, though I get the sense that on a certain level he likes it.
This is the language of politics. Ultimately I feel it’s why Kerry lost. He wasn’t a “man’s man.”
I’m rambling. Too much red wine on Saturday night. I think I need to go watch House of Flying Daggers. Watch some women kick butt.
no really, you have a very good point there. I happen to be a person who watched body language in order to really get what they are meaning at some point in things. I watch the eyes too. You have bush pegged just to the T. When someone pushes him off that stance, he throws a tantrum like a little boy. Further making him look so childish it is so pathetic.
And I would agree, the words, the femiphobia in our culture (as in fear of femininity in men, not fear of women), all play into it.
How specific is this to “our” culture? My travels have taken me to Central America and Asia, and I see plenty of the same thing there.
I agree that your analysis of Bush’s body language is spot on.
This is something much, much larger than Bush vs. Kerry.
Have you seen the data the correlates height with pay? Or how about the effect of height on human mate selection? I’m 5’10” on a good day, so I’d love to see both of those change. 🙂
Honestly, I hate the dominance games that men play with one another. What a waste of time. But I don’t have the slightest idea what could be done to fix it, or for that matter what kind of world “fixing it” would result in. Women have their own means of establishing social hierarchies, and I’m not convinced that those would be more pleasant.
I’d like to propose an answer to my own question. How to “fix” the problem of politicians manipulating preferences wired into us since the beginning of sexual reproduction hundreds of millions of years ago.
There is no hope in eliminating these biases. What we can do is consciously try to minimize their invocation during the political process.
I just set up a bloglines account for rss aggregation today. The interface sucks, but my mind races as I anticipate where this is all headed. I have faith that these new technologies will help crush the mainstream media and bring about a better awareness of what’s actually going on in our world and in our communities.
I believe that one outcome will be reduced sensitivity of political processes to behavior related to “dominance”. At least as far as we perceive that dominance exhibited by the politicians themselves.
What we’ll have instead is a system whose outcome is tied much more directly to the organization of smaller-scale social networks.
But those will be just as influenced by the same dominance behaviors. At a smaller scale, so the patterns may not be as obvious.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that even if we could eliminate such influences, that whatever would remain would be anything close to “rational”. Anyone who’s ever studied social psychology will tell you that the human decision making process is a long ways from a utility maximization function.
We are what we are. Finally in the early 21st century, we’re able to observe ourselves in great detail. Some of it doesn’t match our romantic notions about the way we think the world should work.
I’m not saying that there isn’t work to be done. There are obvious cases of manipulation of the masses by and for the benefit of the few. Those injustices should be rectified.
But if you spend too much time ruing human nature, you’ll miss other opportunities.
“How specific is this to “our” culture? My travels have taken me to Central America and Asia, and I see plenty of the same thing there.”
Male dominant social structures are both culturally (and historically) specific, but also, given that pretty much all modern societies manifest it in some way, arguably universal.
I can’t say much for Central America, but the case in certain parts of Asia — Japan, for example — is that the kind of femiphobia media girl brings up (i.e., fear of femininity in men) is far far less of an issue compared to North America. I’m not saying that Japan is less patriarchal though. Anyone who’s lived there can tell you how rigid professional gender roles can be. My point is more that it’s not a question of more or less in the first place, but how different patriarchal structures work differently.
“Women have their own means of establishing social hierarchies, and I’m not convinced that those would be more pleasant.”
Something to keep in mind here is that women established social hierarchies are not outside of the dominant social structure, and are hence, arguably, still formed within a system that positions masculinity as the standard against which all other expressions of gender identities are measured.
“Something to keep in mind here is that women established social hierarchies are not outside of the dominant social structure, and are hence, arguably, still formed within a system that positions masculinity as the standard against which all other expressions of gender identities are measured.”
My head is in very theoretical places at the moment.
I think that overstates the importance of a dominant social structure. Even if we can all agree on what that would mean, the strict containment relation (“formed within”) that is ascribed to social hierarchies in that comment doesn’t sit well with me.
Dominance between people is hard enough to establish at any given time. But I’m not sure what it would mean to measure the dominance of one social hierarchy over the other.
Human experience and thought is very multi-modal. The hierarchies are subjective, non-exclusive, and highly dynamic.
I’ve always wondered this about the phrase “dominant social hierarchy”: to what extent is it usually defined in terms of money?
Yeah, I agree, my phrasing is rather clumsy here and does overstate things and imply a closed deterministic structure. Indeed, they are open and dynamic systems, which I think further emphasize the need to historicize and contextualize, hence my point that even if one takes another country where the society is highly male-dominated (e.g., Japan), one needs to examine how that structure functions on its own terms and not merely posit some kind of universal model of patriarchy with which one measures dominance. Of course, the caveat there is that it’s also necessary to keep in mind that it’s not an exclusive or closed structure, as you rightly point out.
As to your last question, I suppose money does come into the picture one way or another, but I’ll need to think that through further before I can say anything more concrete. What I mean though by the dominant, in this case, would be those particular standards of value that take on a presumption of universality. Heterosexual male sexuality, or whiteness, or bourgeois values, for example.
But we’re getting way too theoretical here now.
That post got me thinking along a new line… I think that is one of the fundamental differences with “women’s equality”. Unless a member of the other 47% lives in a female-less universe (maybe some part of remote Alaska?), the issues are personal.
Not so with “gay rights”. And to a large extent, it’s not the case with “racial equality” (paraphrased). No tension could be more personal and unavoidable than the male/female split.
I read a comment on Booman a few days ago addressed to men: “do your share of the house chores”. You have to admit that that kind of message is far different than policies and demands relating to hiring practices.
“Gender” is everywhere. Check out a version of the list of human cultural universals. A good portion of them have to do with gender.
In response to your later point about liberal men supporting “choice” and thinking that should be good enough: I think I know what you’re talking about, though a concrete example might help. What should it take to be “good enough” on this issue? In concrete terms. There are 6.4 billion people on this planet, and I don’t want to make any assumptions about what one in particular is thinking.
I don’t yet hear a clear voice on this issue. At this point I’ve been trying to reverse-engineer the message based on connotations and context.
Oops. “(paraphrased)” should have been applied one set of quotes later.
I’m not sure how to answer that in just one post. I’d say there are a fair number of examples of “choice is enough already” positions posted on DKos, especially around and regarding the pie and NARAL discussions.
As for what would be “good enough,” I think at this point we’re only asking to be heard — that because we perceive an injustice or wrong, that lends the concern validity even if all the men don’t see it or understand it.
Yes, I agree that there seems to be an unwillingness by many to be open to hearing about unperceived concerns.
in the same way that 53% of the population became a “minority”
I much prefer “identity politics” (which, ideally, preserve diversity and individuality) to “sameness politics” (everyone must be equal), which we see in disingenuous forms on the right, and in more sincere but still counterproductive forms on the (Second Wave) feminist left.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I confess I’ve never quite felt so heard before on a superblog. I appreciate your comments, and feel relieved and reassured that I’m not babbling from Babel here.
I truly appreciate the thoughtful and rational atmosphere here, with minimal stridency. I just hope my snarky habits don’t end up spoiling such a warm welcome.
😀
I, for one, do not take anything personal in what is being said here. I tried hard at the kos too, but I had to draw the line in the sand somewhere, for my own comfort level. I think we all do at sometime or the other on a lot of things/topics. This is what is so different here, media girl. I feel such a great comfort here. You go girl…say what you want and feel. Just please for someone like me just make a little sense in your topic and commnets is all I ask in this blog site. And you have.
The problem I have is that I simply do not understand the philosophy behind the claim that the state should deny a woman control over her own body. It seems to either be predicated on the concept that either the woman is incapable of making rational, moral choices; or that her body does not belong to the woman. Though who it does belong to, then, is a very interesting question. Does it belong to the state? The fetus? Her husband? How, exactly, do the interests of these entities override the interests of the woman? Why do they revoke her person-hood and right to self-determination?
Sure, the fetus may be a human life, albeit one completely dependent on the woman’s body for every aspect of its survival. Unlike a child that has been born, providing for the fetus’ survival may not be done by anyone but the woman in question, and no-one else has to deal with the costs incurred. (Risk of unpredictable death in childbirth among others) But this is assuming that the fetus is a human life in the first place – something that is not beyond question! Science is unable to determine when the fetus becomes a human life, and even religion does not provide any universal answers, as different religions place different dividing lines, ranging from the moment of conception to the moment of birth or later. I’m not even sure that it’s possible to answer this question universally, especially since many other problems come into play. If it is a human life, but is not capable of self-awareness or has not yet developed self-awareness, what happens then? Does the woman have the right to terminate her pregnancy, as no self-aware being is being harmed? How exactly could we prove this presence or absence of consciousness one way or the other?
The only possible reasonable philosophy that does not deny the individual their basic human rights (IE, by transferring control of the body to the state, or by asserting that women are inhuman) is that the woman is the only one qualified to say whether or not her aborting a pregnancy is moral. Her beliefs, feelings, and thoughts on the issue are the only ones that could possibly matter. She is the one who must deal with the consequences, whether she has the abortion or has the child. I find the so-called morality those that would attempt to deny the woman the basic human right to control her own body and make her own choices to be deeply offensive and immoral. It compromises the woman’s basic human rights for the sake of another’s comfort or political pragmatism.
Even the political pragmatism angle is questionable. No matter how much Republicans like to trumpet it, the pro-choice/anti-choice issue is far down on the list of the priorities of most voters. Thus, even from a purely politically pragmatic standpoint, we have no reason to do anything but default to moral philosophy, which states that the woman, as any other human being, has the right to control her own body.
keep up the good work
“Maybe in a few years, when men start carrying in-vitro children (and I expect someday it will happen, if we don’t manage to blow ourselves up first)…”
Hmmm. And if we do develop this technology, what’s to prevent the government, in the case of a pregnant woman being in a tragic accident which will cause her to lose her life (but the fetus would otherwise surive)– what’s to prevent the government from requiring the fetus to be implanted in the father for the remainder of its gestation period? Hmmm.
Well, well, well, I can not inagine this occuring for one thing, but a good hypothetical to debate.
For one, the man can not change his lifestyle for one thing to accomodate such a fantacy. They would have to stop the soprts and the drinking and the smoking and much more, that men do that women have to stop to have a pregnancy develope and deliver. This is a very exciting thing to think about…I do not think their backs could handle it…I know mine just about gave out with mine. I think most of thier pain levels would suffer too…:o) I would hate to think of the testestrone levels shifting and all that chemistry changing for them…I would love to imagine it tho…bs I think the first time it occured would be the last…bs
of the old bumpersticker that said,
“if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
be denied to women, and no human rights should be denied to any human being.
But I remain unconvinced that abortion is a right. Killing a human being is never a right, regardless of whether some, or even many, disagree about whether an act is really killing or not or whether a being is really human or not.
There is no right to abortion, or reproduction, in this country, not should there be. There is a right to privacy, which, according to Roe v. Wade is a right to be left alone to determine for oneself whether what happens in an abortion is wrong or not.
Abortion is not a right. Basic control of one’s body is a right. From that comes the right and obligation for the pregnant woman to weigh the human-ness of the fetus. The woman may make that decision, but no-one else may.
The problem with merely defining it as privacy is that it is inadequate. The right to privacy does not give you the right to harm another human being. However, in this case, there is no objective evidence that the fetus is a human being (and cannot be any such evidence), thus the decision about whether it is or isn’t is placed, by default, in the hands of the pregnant woman.
…that an embryo or fetus that is wholly dependent upon another being is in fact a human being. Where does that begin?
When brainwave activity begins?
When a certain week is passed?
At conception?
The gleam in the sperm donor’s eye?
To argue that a prenatal fetus or embryo is a human being is to assert faith, superstition, what have you, but not science.
or maybe just engaging in wishful thinking.
I do not use faith to come though the conclusion that life begins at conception. I use reason. What do you use? Or do you resign yourself to the conclusion that “It’s all too complicated and no one agrees, so I’ll just use whatever definition is most convenient to my interests?”
I’ve posted this explanation in various forms and will continue to do so:
There are many ways to determine an appropriate definition of when human life begins, but very few of those ways are also consistent with our given values and current knowledge of fetal development and genetics. That life begins at conception is, as stated in Blackmun’s arguments in Roe v. Wade, at least as old an idea as the school of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras. These were the same fairly credible folks who, in addition to the idea of conception, brought us geometry and the mathematical foundations of modern science, as well as the Hippocratic Oath and the correct measurement of the round earth – nearly 2000 years before Columbus incorrectly measured it. Were they right about everything? No, but many of their ideas have withstood the tests of time and challenge and now are critical parts of the foundations of modern law, religion, and science. Conception is one of those ideas.
Here’s an argument/proof you can try at home:
Start with the knowns – the givens: Human beings are endowed with inalienable human rights.
What does that imply? One thing it means is that humans must be ends in and of themselves, not means toward anybody else’s end. To think otherwise is to disbelieve in the concept of inalienable human rights.
Another known: An embryo is a unique organism, with its own genes. The same is NOT true of a sperm or an ovum, which are just cells that are genetically identical to another organism. A human embryo will also never become a whale or plant or any other organism. It is a unique member of the homo sapiens species.
The implication: Species membership is the broadest possible definition of humanity.
Another given: Exclusivity is a conservative value, while inclusively is a liberal one. Exclusivity necessarily denies rights or privileges by restricting membership.
The implication? To be consistent with liberal values AND with a belief in inalienable human rights, mere membership in the homo sapiens species is the necessary and sufficient condition to be considered endowed with inalienable rights. Therefore, conception, the period when an embryo is formed, is the beginning of human life. To believe otherwise is to 1) Disbelieve in inalienable rights, or 2) Disagree with our current state of observable knowledge regarding fetal development or genetics, or 3) be inconsistent with liberal values.
Can you argue with the above? Of course. But please do not try to denigrate the pro-life position by accusing it of being based in nothing more than faith.
You call it pro-life, I call it pro-slavery.
Why does life begin at conception? You say reason, but then offer none. Is it chromosomes? Is that all life is? Chromosomes?
What about the gamete actually attaching to the uterus? Does that count for anything?
What about the food and energy drawn from the mother’s womb? Does that count for anything?
Why all this significance placed on conception? Could it be nostalgia for that “magic moment” when the man ejaculated?
I say human life begins at birth. I use reason. It’s when we see a baby. It’s when it can breathe on its own. It’s when it can eat. It’s when it becomes aware of the world.
Now some could argue that brainwave activity might mark the beginning of human life. But even then, that’s no more arbitrary than choosing conception, although it’s more consistent with avoiding extraordinary measures to prolong the life of a hospital patient who’s lapsed into a vegetative state.
If human life begins at conception, then all you have to do is jerk off onto an egg and there it is! Life! Congratulations!
You ignore the entire role of the mother and process of gestation, and call your position “pro-life.”
To me, that is faith.
If you don’t want to take the time to think through the reason I’ve presented, it is your right, but let’s take apart your reason then:
“I say human life begins at birth. I use reason. It’s when we see a baby. It’s when it can breathe on its own. It’s when it can eat. It’s when it becomes aware of the world.”
You’re right. That is certainly using reason, but lets see if it remains consistent with the principles that lead to conception?
From the start, you violate #3. You have chosen a more exclusive definition of humanity, although you could just have easily have chosen a slightly more inclusive one — just before birth. That may still be valid logically, but you have just departed from a core basis of liberalism — that of inclusiveness, which is derived from equality. Since you have violated three, it is also arguable that you have violated 1, since by denying rights to an excluded group, you have summarily determined that the needs of some undeniably human organisms take precedence over the others. That’s the kind of belief system that gives us Gitmo, which is why it is dangerous.
Conception is the NON-arbitrary definition, because it is only at that time when you can’t go back any farther. There are other non-arbitrary definitions, but they will violate the foundations of human rights — equality and inalienability, which is what you invoke for the mother as well, a non-sequitur. You can’t invoke something as an argument if you already disbelieve the foundations upon which it sits.
And at no point is the mother ignored in the process. You are making things up there.
…if women are nothing but wombs. I make the apparently radical step of including women as human beings.
You don’t have to be “pro abortion” to have real problems with state-run breeding regulations that make people into slaves of the state.
The concept of “inclusiveness” can be taken to any kind of absurdist extreme. Conservatives argue that universities are not inclusive because they will hire only Ph.D.-holders as professors. And yet “liberalism” is founded on the very idea of a robust education that includes, necessarily, teachers who’ve achieved a certain amount within that framework.
I’m not saying that humanity is an achievement, but there is a point where you have a human being, and to me it’s rather silly to say it’s at the point of conception. Why conception? It’s arbitrary. Why not holding hands? Or kissing? A fetus is wholly dependent upon a human being — a specific being that already is recognized as having rights under the Constitution — to survive. What’s more, that human being is still creating this fetus.
Once born, the baby does not derive its growth directly from any single person. We have a social contract that obligates mothers (and sometimes fathers) to the nurturing of that baby. But it breathes on its own, eats on its own. If the mother dies, the baby need not. However, if a pregnant woman dies, the fetus dies. Why? Because the fetus is part of the woman, and until it actually separates and becomes a separate being, it is a part of the woman.
Men often seem to have the idea that the fetus is like a taxicab passenger, taking a ride for a while. But the fetus has no individuality, not until it separates from the woman, not until it emerges from the womb.
Now you can take issue if you like, but I won’t participate any more if you insist on arguing with a straw man.
but it appears colored unnecessarily by the idea that I as well as other men must be discounting the critical role that a pregnant mother plays in the creation of a human child. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is nothing in the arguments that I have given that need be understood that way unless you are bringing that bias to the discussion yourself.
You are right that inclusiveness can be taken to an absurd extreme, but I argue that it is not the case here. The only thing that I am arguing is that the most basic human right of all, the right to merely live, must belong to all humans, regardless of state of physical or mental development or handicap, if we are to be at all consistent with any notion of human rights.
You make a good case for your definition of humanity – that a creature must display a minimum level of practical independence from its mother before it can be considered human. Several ethicists and philosphers have argued that position as well, and it is not unreasonable. In traditional Korean society, that point in time was actually determined to be the child’s first birthday, when societal and legal rights began to be conveyed.
Why conception? Because it is only then that you have the beginnings of what is undeniably a new organism. Even you don’t agree that it is human yet, it is not possible to deny that a human embryo is, in fact, a unique and living organism. You may think it has no more rights than the tapeworm that also might depend on your body for sustenance, but that it is both a living organism and member of the homo sapiens species is simply the truth.
I believe that human rights are the foundation of any semblance of just society. That is my only faith in this issue. It just so happens, inconveniently as it often is, that equality is the bedrock of human rights. The concept of human rights has no meaning at all if they don’t apply to everyone equally. They would be human privileges then — not rights. And inclusiveness is directly derived from equality. While it would be foolish to take inclusiveness too far, as you point out, it is totally reasonable to
expect that most basic right of all — to live — include all possible members of the human species. In fact, it becomes unreasonable to invoke human rights in defense of the mother if you are unwilling to grant the basic right to live to the most inclusive definition of humanity, which is conception (and I am not even defining what conception is or how long it takes here).
You seem to be arguing that because a mother is the most important element in a child’s creation, that she has a right to terminate that process once it has begun. I am arguing that such a position is not sustained by reason if you also believe that all people are endowed with human rights from creation (which the ethicists and philosphers I cited above do not) and do not wish to refute what is currently known scientifically about fetal develop and genetics.
I also think you are carrying it to far to say that any prohibition on abortion is tantamount to state control over human reproduction. It is not. The state, under our form of government, exists only to secure the rights of individuals. In the case of abortion, it is a question of a right to live versus a right to be left alone. Usually the right to live takes priority over all other rights if they ever conflict because you can’t be human if you can’t live. Only if a fetus is threatening the life of the mother could she ever claim a right to terminate its life and be consistent in her belief that she even has rights at all.
The right to privacy invoked by Roe v. Wade ingeniously sidesteps the issue. It says that since we don’t have conclusive agreement yet on when a fetus is human, all we can say is that it gets more and more clearly-to-all human as time goes on, so a woman may reasonably deny to herself and anyone else that she is actually killing someone until the second trimester, when it becomes obvious enough to the world that something human is going on there.
To take that judgement any farther and claim a right to kill up to birth or even that abortion is acceptable even though you believe that you are killing a living human organism completely contradicts the whole premise of human rights which you are invoking when you claim a right to abortion.
In my travels about the planet I have noticed that the more liberated the women are the more civilized the culture is.
I think I know the gist of your point, and I generally agree.
The word “liberated” is interesting. I wonder if we all share the same connotations for that word?
I googled for “liberated”. Proving my point perfectly, the second result for “liberated” at Google is a page called Liberated Christians: Polyamory.
Before I got that result, I thought I might be a little more subtle in my suggested range of connotations for “liberation”. But there you have it. It’s a word that conjures up a wide range of meanings. Some of them may not be ones that you intend.
It’s good to see “media girl” bring up the issue of language and the little refrains we sing to ourselves in our heads sometimes. We should bear in mind that language is constantly evolving around us, and it takes real work to communicate clearly sometimes.
Sorry to pick on your post, but “liberated” is a word I’ve wanted to comment on this past week.