Amy has a short but powerful post up about abortion over at her place, one in which her feelings and passion about the subject are quite plain. However, in the comments, an anonymous person (and we all know how I feel about anonymous...) applies her argument to pornography and a woman's decision to appear in/purchase it. Now, some folk will say there are no parallels between a woman's decision to have (or not have) an abortion and a woman's decision to appear (or not appear) in porn, and as you might guess, I disagree. The "woman's choice" argument does, in my opinion, work for porn quite well. I've discussed it before, but I think I want to revisit the subject and expound on just how similar the two choices can be.
So here we go again, over the edge and down the rabbit hole.
We begin with the restating of the obvious: I believe in a woman’s right of domain over her own body, and her choice to do with it as she will- be that get an abortion, have children, dress and adorn it as she wishes, modify it as she wishes, have sex with whom she wishes, rent it out is she wishes, so on, so forth, ad infinitum, forever and ever, amen.
Thus, obviously, I believe a woman has the right to and choice of having an abortion, and I believe a woman has the right to and choice of performing in porn.
Basic and straight forward, no?
I also know that a great many feminists, most, really, and a hefty section of anti-pornography activists (those who object for reasons other than religious, generally), are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, yet remain anti-porn. Generally, they are not against the women in porn, but the porn itself, and thusly, in a round about way, the woman’s decision to be in porn.
But it is her choice, no?
And feminism is, at some point, about a woman’s choice, be it to get an abortion, or be in porn.
Ah yes, I hear it now…”but Ren, we have to look at and examine the reasons, the pressures, the things that color, influence, and make a woman make the decision to be in porn!”
We do? Okay, we do. Then…do we need to do the same thing for the reasons a woman might get an abortion…or is that out of bounds, none of our business, and well, she just has that right?
Humm. You do realize some of the reasons might be…similar? Yet while it is uncouth and in bad taste to question a woman’s right of choice in regards to abortion, and perhaps even the conditions in which she made that choice when it comes to abortion…it is fine, dandy, and in fact a moral imperative to ask all those things if her choice is…porn?
Right then. No choice is made in a vacuum. Let’s roll with that.
Reasons some women, perhaps even many, get involved with pornography (based on many-a-anti-porn argument):
They are young and naïve.
They have been sexually abused or raped.
They have a drug habit.
Economic need.
No other options, let alone attractive ones.
Pressures of a sexualized, pornified, society.
Seeking love, affirmation, or attention.
Fear.
Possible consequences of appearing in pornography:
Shunning from society/ slut shaming.
Being rejected by family, friends, and loved ones.
Harassment.
Stalking.
STD’s or physical harm.
Psychological harm.
Being exploited and objectified as a “whore”, “piece of meat”, ect.
Can impact future employment opportunities, social standing, relationships, political aspirations, so on, so forth.
They will live with that decision for the rest of their lives.
Reasons some women, perhaps even many, get abortions:
They are not ready to handle the pressures of having a child.
They are young and wish to continue in their educations or jobs.
They have been sexually abused or raped.
They have a drug habit.
They cannot afford to have a child (economic need).
No other options, let alone attractive ones.
Pressure from society (which, oddly enough, is also a big reason some women who might otherwise get them do not get abortions).
Seeking to be free from the obligation of raising children,
They are not ready in some other way to be a parent.
Medical reasons.
Fear.
Possible consequences of having an abortion:
Shunning from society/ slut shaming.
Being rejected by family, friends, and loved ones.
Harassment.
Physical harm or damage.
Psychological harm.
Being objectified or exploited as a “slut”, “baby-killer”, ect,
Can impact social standing, relationships, political aspirations, so on, so forth.
They will live with that decision for the rest of their lives.
So yes, no choice is made in a vacuum, including the decision to have an abortion, or be in porn. Very few women wake up one day and out of no where decide to do either, most give it a fair amount of consideration. The choice for either is often made by younger women, and under pressure. Both decisions can and will affect the woman, and often, for women, neither are an easy choice to make. However…
When it comes to abortion, the battle cry is often “Her body, her choice! Her right! You do not get to question! How dare you judge? How dare you ask? How dare you seek to control, influence, shame, or otherwise do anything to this woman? It is Her Choice!”
But when it comes to porn, well…it’s not her choice! She’s been duped, controlled, has no choice! She cannot be expected to think and decide for herself! There must be something wrong with her! She must have been abused, or on drugs, or tricked! We must ask! We can judge! It is our business! She did not make a choice, there is no such thing as a choice when it comes to this, no one would make this choice! No one would willingly and with forethought do that with their body! There is something wrong with her! This is not a choice!
Well, see, I find that ironic, and little sickening, actually. Truth is both are choices women make, in a variety of conditions, for a variety of reasons. No choice is made in a vacuum, but both are choices. Her choice. Yet one is supported, defended, and protected without question in a great many circles. The other is not accorded that same consideration, at all, in those same circles. Both come down to the same thing…the idea of a woman’s right and ability to choose what to do with her body and what happens to and in it…yet…
One choice is a sacred, personal, and rallying point choice.
The other is decidedly…not.
Why is that? Do tell. Call me curious.
Let’s hear it.
46 comments:
Thank you, Ren. It has always puzzled me how abortion issues are always discussed in terms of choice and autonomy, yet elsewhere choice and autonomy are deemed illusory, only present for the privileged, etc. It's not internally consistent, and has always bothered hell out of me.
I know rads, in their arguments against "choice feminism", say that porn is a bad choice because it supposedly goes against women as a whole, whereas they obviously don't feel that way about abortion.
But, yeah, the do fall back on a lot of individual choice arguments when it comes to abortion, and I think those same arguments come back and bite them in the ass when it comes to the porn issue.
They're basically saying that traditional morality doesn't trump women's individual choices, but their morality does.
True, there are some women in pornography who have chosen to do so, and have been in no way duped or forced into it.
And, I can, to a certain extent, see how the pro-pornography feminist argument "It's my/her body, my/her choice, I/she choose(s) to appear in porn" is pretty logical, following that principle.
However, as you know, I do also personally have my own opinions about pornography, which make me anti-porn.
The thing with that commentor was the way in which they brought up pornography - more specifically, being anti-pornography, and then almost putting it in the same box as being anti-abortionist (true, pro-lifers can be anti-porn, but from a very different perspective as anti-porn feminists!) - just seemed to come from out of nowhere, they made no logical link.
(Again with my lack of articulate-i-ness...I think my brain melted during my German oral exam today)
Amy: Heh, I know you're anti porn, which I am okay with, actually...and I hate anony comments...but, I figure, since us..ahem..."yayporn" types are constantly asked to examine things, well, why not ask for a different sort of examining? Shrug.
How did the german test go? (I speak some german, badly, heh. I took it for four years, many years ago, and while I understand it pretty well, I have a hard time answering anything auf Deutsch).
There are two simple explanations for this phenomenon - being all about choice for abortion and denying any real choice exists for porn:
Intellectual Dishonesty
and, slightly more generous:
Cognitive Dissonance
I make no secret about my feelings on the hypocrisy of anti-porn but supporting women's rights for reproductive freedom. In my domain, the 2 are completely aligned and intricate. It is woman's agency that is at stake. Period.
The discourse in both arise from the same philosophical throne. It's the fear of women's sexuality no matter how it presents itself. I'm not the biggest fan of the pop-tartlets in media, painted as having little offer beside their crotch-shots, but that is a social construction of the media rather than the girls themselves. Meaning when Brittney flashes the camera, I don't pass judgement about her fitness to be a parent because, gasp.... she's not wearing panties??? Oh, fuck off.
It's our society's desire to put women on a pedestal and knock them right back off because they have proven their slutitude, as if that is enough of a reason to remove one's autonomy. Isn't that the anti-abortion argument, you make you bed... you little hussy. Now go put some clothes on and maybe you won't have to have an abortion, and for gawd's sake don't go objectifying yourself in porn.
The abortion side has been much more effective at identifying and counseling women coerced, forced, abused and otherwise not able to make the choice for themselves than sex-work has(which is now shifting... I hope). Largely because of the people who have fought for it to be safe and legal.
As you know I am pro-choice for both porn and abortion. So I don't agree with this, but I think the way the anti-porn group would distinguish porn and abortion is that one affects all women and the other only the woman having the abortion. The woman in porn is putting an image out there that will degrade women, will affect men's choice to degrade women, etc.
Now, the reason I don't agree with this argument is that I don't think the images degrade women. Men (and sometimes women, but yeah, mostly men) degrade women. And I don't believe porn makes anyone do this who otherwise wouldn't. So the woman who chooses to do porn is not, IMO, affecting other women, only herself. Which gets back to choice.
"The discourse in both arise from the same philosophical throne. It's the fear of women's sexuality no matter how it presents itself."
YES.
And some feminists only seem to really care when it's about abortion... why? Risk? No, that doesn't seem right. Slut-shaming? No, because women who have abortions are slut-shamed too and feminists understand that's wrong... eh.
I've never been able to reason it out.
I have to say it. It’s on topic, sort of.
Ren, a lot of women probably hate the images and imagery, the visual stuff, that you use on your blog. I’m sure some even add it all up to your ‘narcissism’. I’ve no doubt in my mind at all that they hide in their little safe spaces and make fun of your ‘sexbot’ body and everything else they can think of…from anonymously posting here no matter how offensive they find you and your images to be to accusing you of being a drug addict/drunk. I suspect they really, really want you to “break the treaty”. They’re daring you, actually. The comments here and at Sage’s say that plain enough.
Because you do make them look bad, just not in the way they think.
But that image you used for this post? Porny you and everything? It’s absolutely BRILLIANT. The message and the artistic quality and the way it ties in with what you are saying here is perfect. If that image was of “more natural and ‘real’ woman”, nude or not, I bet money you’d find it on a variety of feminist blogs advocating choice and lord only knows what else.
You’re post is good, good points, good arguments, good food for thought, but that image really says even more.
Wow.
Octogalore, that is my other beef. It's not that the acts in itself are degrading but the people who claim it so. That isn't only the anti-porn camp either, men who define it as "degrading" yet are turned on by it and use it as a reason to disrespect another human being is just as hypocritical and really should grow up before trying to play adult games like sex. I personally believe that it is possible to engage in all sorts of kinky sex and still respect the person that you share that with.
Now, on the other hand if such kinks gross you out, and you yourself could not tolerate or participate in such, I see nothing wrong with saying no and refusing to watch such things. However, don't you dare judge me for what gets my body humming.
I mean bloody hell, from what I hear some women are turned on by a man doing the dishes... does nothing for me but, hey whatever floats your boat.
First of all: great post. Not much to add to it, 'cause you've said it all!
One thing came to mind though... arguing w/ certain anti-abortion activists is a bit like arguing w/ a brick wall, because for them it always comes back to, "But God says it's wrong!" Well, I don't subscribe to that idea of what God says; and so, we're at an impasse.
Similarly, wrt porn, w/ some folks it comes back to, "But the Patriarchy _____" (insert whatever it is the Patriarchy is doing).
Impasse.
Amber, yes...but...
AHAH! Often, it is also the pat saying porn is WRONG. I mean, really, if you go by the theories, it ain't the women shaming, lying about, degrading, using the women in porn, its the men, right? And what better way to tell a woman she is wrong than by...
shaming, lying about, degrading, and using a woman?
Bad slut. Bad, worthless porn whore, look how wrong you are for doing this for money...
The pat is saying it's wrong, too.
Hummmm...
ften, it is also the pat saying porn is WRONG.
Oh, I know that. I was giving an example of what their argument looks like.
And I've never been able to get past the cognitive dissonance.
Because, like we were discussing over at AP's, the shaming of sex - especially when women do it - as something dirty, base, sinful... well, that's Patriarchy too. That's the Patriarchy that I, personally, always heard loud and clear, growing up.
It seems to me that an unstated objection to porn: (well, generally unstated. An old girlfriend raised this objection to my viewing of porn) It made her jealous and she felt that she could not measure up to the women on the screen. I know that is argument by anecdote but I wonder of such a sentiment is behind at least some of the vehement objection.
A second point: Women do not materially profit from getting an abortion. It's a personal and, I have to assume, traumatic decision. Nobody pays to watch an abortion. Woman want abortions, so it's a womans choice to get one or no.
Men want the porn, so a woman's decision to be in porn is not as valued or deemed worthy of defense.
Speaking in generizations, I should qualify. I know there are many exceptions.
William:
Oh, a big part of the objection to porn is "it presents an unreal ideal of sex and what women look like".
Now, there is no money gain in getting an abortion, but often it IS an economically influenced decision, because babies COST money. Thus, it is a motivator. Just as money made in porn is a motivator.
Okay...
I read the comments at Amy's. That first anonymous comment came totally out of left field and sounded ridiculous. Call me a tinfoil hat wearer, but I've got a feeling that "anon" is a certain anti-porn lovely in disguise. Trying to accomplish God knows what, and yet there it is.
"It made her jealous and she felt that she could not measure up to the women on the screen."
That one so totally never held water with me. I think we, as women, need to fight *against* the notion that we should be judged and compared to other women. Legitimizing those worries by trying to make sure that women never see something that will make them feel inadequate strikes me as... wrong.
Shouldn't we instead be trying to teach women to love their bodies and encouraging more of the mainstream porn industry to depict more varied bodies? Isn't that a better place to put our energy?
If porn *is* the teaching/sexuality training tool they say it is (which I doubt, btw), let's reprogram everyone to love more bodies...
You know, just as an aside, I think I've abandoned my regular ID for an anon login...I could count on one hand how many times I've done it; and -never- at a place I'd posted at before; those have been strictly drive-bys. and generally i don't even really like doing that.
if the "anons" recently popping up really is/are someone who "treatied" with you...well, it'd have been hard for my opinion of Certain People to sink much lower than it already has, but that might reduce another centimer or so. -especially- if the one posting HERE is. for fuck's sake. i mean it's not like we don't expect to encounter them anywhere outside our own blogs, but to come to your very own blog after all that...
One other point, in addition to all the other excellent points made here:
There are a select few radfem activists who do in fact defend abortion as part of their supposed ideology against men and male sexuality. The notion is that abortion is needed to reverse the evil byproducts of male sexuality (i.e., pregnancies caused by rape or incest), or to physically reduce the male population. This is nothing more than a twisted abomination of the more traditional "reproductive right to choose" position that most pro-choice activists abide by...but it does serve as a useful straw position to be attacked by anti-abortion people.
In a way, it's similar to a White supremacist advocating selective abortion as a means of "reducing the welfare illegitmacy rate" (read, getting rid of poor Black and Brown people), or a eugenicist advocating using abortion (or other forms of coerced sterilization) as a means of "controlling" unwanted births.
In that sense, there's no hypocrisy at all to these folks between being anti-porn and being "pro-abortion": both are part of the same goal of protecting women against male rapicity.
To me, though, both reproductive freedom and sexual freedom are part and parcel of the same basic principle: A woman's basic and fundamental control over her own body. I no more like abortion than most people do, but since I as a man will never have to face the choice of having to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason; I don't feel that I have any right to lecture any woman who has to face that dreadful decision. And likewise, unless I am personally involved in another woman's sex life; I don't feel that I have any right to dictate to her what she should do with her sex organs. I can give recommendations if she solicits my opinions, but she reserves the right not to agree to them. (And even if I am involved; it's still her final decision.)
Anthony
Ren,
Thanks for succintly summing up my scattered babble.
Yes, Womens choice in both cases has economic influences and consequences. The difference (among many others) is that wrt to porn, a woman can manifestly gain wealth, whereas with an abortion a woman doesn't, she instead avoids a huge responsibility and a long term obligation which can limit her opportunities . . . if that makes sense.
Lets face it, it's pretty obvious: Because of jealousy and ego-centricism. Is there any other fucking explanation really?
I'm tired of this anti-porn bullshit. Why the hell is this a goddamn concern to anyone? There's fucking minorities that are having a goddamn hard time out there - and porn has been widespread since the goddamn sixties. You'd think we could see the consequences by now, but no. There is none.
- Martin
Amy,
"Some women"?
Come on. You'd fucking think that MOST women would be able to take responsibility for their own goddamn lives.
Lets get back to reality and face the facts. A minority of women get 'duped', just like you can get carroted into some job with low salary unintentionally.
Sex is a line of work like everything else.
- Martin
I was involved with a man who was very uncomfortable with my sexuality, specifically what he considered to be promiscuity. We would have an argument, and it would diffuse... with me assuming that he had worked through his own issues(which I asserted I had no problem with my sexual experiences... it was his problem) and he would assume that I came around to what he thought was more acceptable.... that I had done it but now regretted it and learned my lesson. when i would argue that i hadn't hurt anyone, he would always ask "what about yourself though, you can't tell me that you weren't damaged"... um yeah whatever.
that is my other problem, much like abortion is supposed to be regrettable and you "learn your lesson", very much the same with shaming women who have sex on film or not.
You know I used to be this anit-porn and anti- prostitiution type until this whole thing blew up with stormy. Then this voice said this is wrong, so totally wrong. As much as I have tryed to put distance between me and christanity there is one line that always gets me. Judge not lest you be judged. Of course one cannot stay in that liminal state. Of course one has to judge sooner or later, but what I found is that rad fems were no different that the christians I had tried to get beyond. I saw I had traded one dogma for another and was so totally blind/deaf/ignorant. I found out that the madonna/whore split is in everywoman and to make that split permanent is so totally silly. I have no right to judge a woman because she does porn and I am not into it at all. But, holy fucking juniper janus, feminism is about freedom, liberation, and personal agency. It's about connection and engagement and learning. It's about supporting women because they are women who make choices and have to live in this society. So thank you Ren. I am much too old to do porn, etc. but you know I do feel the whore is sacred and not a mystical and otherworld sacredness, but because sex has been so totally controlled and vilified and this idea that it is playing into the patriarchy is just another unexamined judgement. As far as I am concerned it is an intellectual, academic blockage. Shame and guilt are powerful feelings and your resistance to them is so inspiring.
I remember my mother talking about reputation, but golly she lived such a dull life. May you always have the energy to be you.
rhonddah:
Thanks.
For me, though, it's always bothered me how many who are passionately pro-choice when it comes to reproductive rights, so often simply lose that principle when it comes to supporting an individual woman's control over her sexual life. Maybe it's the sex radical or the patriarch in me, but I always assumed that the two principles -- pro-reproductive freedom and pro-sexual freedom -- were synonymous with and interdependent on each other, and stood together. I mean, the resistance to both is fundamentally based on controlling sexuality, isn't it??
Personally, I think that a lot of the cognitive dissonance of radfems who oppose free choice on porn while defending it on abortion is that some of them see abortion as a means of deliberately punishing men for the crimes of impregnating and injuring women through unwanted pregnancy or rape or incest..or simply for having erections and using them on women. I know that Catherine MacKinnon has at one time promoted a similar principle about abortion being needed to punish men...though I forget the exact venue or link.
I can see the "fear of unfettered women's sexuality" paradigm that enforces much opposition to abortion AND porn from the Christian/Religious Right...but I'd say that a broader fear of sexual expression per se from both men AND women (I mean, the radfems aren't too happy with some more explicit sexual expressions amongst lesbians or gay men or bisexuality, either; any more than the traditional conservatives are) lies at the root of the matter.
There isn't, in my opinion, that much of a difference between the sexual morality of most APRF's and that of the Religious Right (and a decent chunk of the Religious Center and Left, indeed),except in that the "good cops' who impose their particular morality are different. (Traditionalists rely on the male voice of God and the institution of marriage and reproduction; while radfems rely on the sacredness of "the sisterhood" and a seamless, timeless sexual "intimacy" that's supposed to transcend even the physical nature of "patriarchial sex".) But both sides, even if they use slightly different vectors of language, generally do share a common consensus that sex unredeemed by narrow conditions of deep "intimacy" or reproduction is a cosmic threat to the order of being, and must be suppressed with haste.
This isn't meant to be a knock on you, Amy, or any principled feminist with genuine issues with porn or sexual expression. I just find it baffling that feminists who scream (rightfully, too) about how bad the recent Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortions screws women are simply stone cold silent when issues of sexual autonomy arise.
But then again, I'm just a "pornstick" male who only uses pro-choice and feminist rhetoric to get into women's panties...or so I am told by some. YMMV.
Anthony
"I'm tired of this anti-porn bullshit. Why the hell is this a goddamn concern to anyone? There's fucking minorities that are having a goddamn hard time out there"
Right. ON.
"Of course one has to judge sooner or later, but what I found is that rad fems were no different that the christians I had tried to get beyond. I saw I had traded one dogma for another and was so totally blind/deaf/ignorant."
The same thing happened to me for a while. I never really endorsed the anti-stuff, but it crept into my brain. I could barely orgasm at all for months. It played on my fears of my own desire... and actually triggered some pretty severe disassociative states I'm just now getting over.
And all this even as I was arguing against it at the top of my lungs, just because I let it worm into my brain far enough. "Maybe radicalism really IS the only way. Maybe I really am bad and wrong for using this stuff. (Yes, I'm a woman and I use porn... have for years.)"
It killed me inside. And I finally realized, FINALLY FINALLY, that me being disconnected from my body and my desire wasn't liberating anyone. Not me, surely -- but NO OTHER WOMAN OR MAN, either.
exactly like the song i'm listening to (which is pretty sexual, actually, too...)
i let you put it in my mouth
i let it get under my skin
i let you pump it through my veins
i let you take me from within
"sex has been so totally controlled and vilified and this idea that it is playing into the patriarchy is just another unexamined judgement."
yes. yes. yes.
"There isn't, in my opinion, that much of a difference between the sexual morality of most APRF's and that of the Religious Right (and a decent chunk of the Religious Center and Left, indeed),except in that the "good cops' who impose their particular morality are different."
You'll enjoy this I think, Anthony:
http://trinityva.livejournal.com/632843.html?thread=3251211#t3251211
http://trinityva.livejournal.com/632843.html?thread=3259403#t3259403
I always thought it was religious right-like. but I never had direct parallels. now I'm swimmin' in 'em.
more lyrics:
And He gives us sight
and we see the light
and it burns so bright
now we know we're right
and he would assume that I came around to what he thought was more acceptable.... that I had done it but now regretted it and learned my lesson. when i would argue that i hadn't hurt anyone, he would always ask "what about yourself though, you can't tell me that you weren't damaged"... um yeah whatever.
oh ew ew ew ew EW. and so he's, what, still dating the "damaged goods" anyway out of the enormous expansiveness of his squishy little heart? bah.
hey, thanks, rhondda.
you know, there are even those (tend to be conservative/libertarian) who are more comfortable with pr0n/sex work than abortion because--well, if you -do- consider the pregnancy a separate and unconsenting person.
i'm pro-choice, but i can at least intellectually understand the position. pragmatically i have a really hard time with anyone who thinks making it illegal is going to be better for anyone in the long run, but personal/moral discomfort? sure, i can dig it. same as i can with anti-porn folks who don't invoke or work toward State repression.
belle,
ew, ew, EWWWW, is right it always reminded me of the religious right saying "we know you had an abortion, a decision no woman should have to make, and since it severed you from your very nature of being a mother by killing your betus we want to help you and lead you into god's arm... now tell us how damaged you are"
woman "what? i wanted that damn thing done, i'm not ashamed"
church"the poor thing, doesn't even realize that she's damaged herself and her uterus, that's okay we'll make laws to help her by making it harder so that'll make her think more next time"
get the fuck out of my hoo-hah unless invite you there, even still it's only a temporary visa motherfucker.
Ren - the german oral went...OK-ish, methinks. Thanks.
I had to think quite a bit on my feet, particularly when Herr G interrupted one of my answers, to ask me something about something I was going to say just a bit later, but it was really awkward because I needed to say certain things in the first answer in order to answer the second well. (Not that that makes much sense!)
T'was a bit crazy yesterday; my olds let me skip first two lessons to revise, then I missed the bus I needed to get (busy drinking coffee!!!), so mum had to give me a lift, which she wasn't too pleased with because she had a meeting shortly. When I got to school, I was on my way to a cafeteria to do a bit more last min revision, and bumped into a teacher whose lesson I'd skipped. Unfortunately I do not have the power of invisibility!
Lets face it, it's pretty obvious: Because of jealousy and ego-centricism. Is there any other fucking explanation really?
Yes, actually, there is. Look, it's beyond obvious that I am not anti-porn, but for fuck's sake... some things are simple, yes, but more often than not, shit is COMPLEX.
Lets face it, it's pretty obvious: Because of jealousy and ego-centricism.
Some, maybe, but by no means all. Personally, I can follow the rational line, I just disagree with it. I think choice trumps rebellion.
I also think that rebellion is a trap; if you do nothing but rebel against something, then you are as defined by that thing as you would be if you did nothing but obey.
And also there's real concern about coersive sexual practices, including pornography, both in the US and elsewhere. Often the anti-porn are also anti-prostitution and anti-sex performer and it is justified by the image of those poor Eastern and Asian women kidnapped and forced to be prostitutes. This is a deeply valid and important concern (though I wish they're drop the implicit racism) and it is a huge problem worldwide. The trick is that there are often straw feminists raised on both sides which obscure the true subtleties of the situation and make it difficult to honestly lay out the different situations, considerations, and concerns - and that's not even getting into the racial and colonialistic issues which are often ignored.
I dislike the "ur just jealous" trope as much as the "you just want the approval of the menz" one. In some cases that may be the motivator, but it's ad hominem, not an actual rebuttle or valid disagreement on the topic at hand.
dioridhe said:
"I dislike the "ur just jealous" trope as much as the "you just want the approval of the menz" one. In some cases that may be the motivator, but it's ad hominem, not an actual rebuttle or valid disagreement on the topic at hand."
As a knee-jerk statement, "ur just jealous" is an ad hominem argument, clearly. On the other hand, as a response to the "porn gives men unrealistic expectations about what 'real women' will look like/do in bed that I won't be able to live up to", well, its hard to see that argument as anything other than glorified jealousy.
Amber,
I disagree. Answers are simple.
Deoridhe,
Valid or not, I point to the problem.
- Martin
Something being a choice doesn't, in and of itself, make it a right. If pornography/abortion is a true moral wrong, then whether the woman chooses it or not, it's still wrong. It's the 'if' part that needs examining. I feel that using the word 'choice' in these debates can be misleading, really - there's always (whatever it is that you're trying to ban - speeding, hunting, anything) a side that says it's a morally definite matter and should be governed by law, and a side that says it ought to be up to the individual; talking only in absolutes of choice or black-and-white morality doesn't promote dialogue. I like reading about the reasons and the consequences.
"I dislike the "ur just jealous" trope as much as the "you just want the approval of the menz" one. In some cases that may be the motivator, but it's ad hominem, not an actual rebuttal or valid disagreement on the topic at hand."
I agree. It's too easy to dismiss disagreements by deducing the physical characteristics of the person making the argument, fundamentally it goes against many of the other arguments that I make... so I can't go around so much as to hurl it at others, now can I?
I truly don't believe that jealousy is at the heart of the matter any more than I believe the women protesting abortions are jealous that my "womb" is more fertile/barren than theirs.
It's a philosophical argument, and at the very least deserves to be dealt with in an intellectual way versus, "oh, you're just ugly".
For instance, as with the religious right movement, for years the Dem's have been catering to a "center" position about abortion. The religious right sees it as "murder" hands down, there is no room for negotiation when you consider that POV. Their argument falls flat the moment they can justify it.
IMO, the same goes for porn, it's the absolutes and righteous positions that create that kind of "battle".
The problem is in pro-choice on both the porn and abortion assume that free-will will prevail and that they don't need to fight for the right to say yes, just as much as they need the right to say no.
What's up Evo??
I'm some young MRA formerly known as Revolutionary.
And, as I scan the comments, I haven't seen anyone give an effective argument to counter what you wrote so, I will volunteer!
(Remember, I am not criticizing you, but your argument.)
http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/2007/04/prequel-tyranny-of-tolerance-part-ii.html
"Let's break this down.
The classic feminist argument for abortion is “My Body, My Choice.”
And I must acknowledge that feminists and pro-abortioners are, in general, are very eloquent in their arguments.
As an example, my good friend Renegade Evolution argues:
"A Woman’s Right of Domain over Her own Body:
To me, this goes so above and beyond the right to have a safe, legal abortion, but we will start there. Surprise! I believe in every woman’s right to have a safe and legal abortion. That is a big decision, a life altering choice. But it should be her choice to make.
Such a choice does come with great responsibility though. I think a woman in a relationship owes it to her partner to discuss these things, to hear his opinion and consider it and take it into account. It takes two people to make a baby, and in some cases, I really think it should be two people deciding what to do if egg and sperm hook up in such a manner.
Yes, ultimately it is her body and her decision, but her life is not the only one that will be affected by that decision, be it to have the baby or not, and she needs to consider and remember that. That being said, it is not the government’s choice, or the churches, or society as a whole. It is hers. All those other folks need to keep their laws and morality off her body and out of her decision."
Her words are a very good articulation of the typical pro abortion view on this topic.
However, I have to say that this line of reasoning is quite wrong.
Even the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which we will examine shortly, does NOT acknowledge that a woman is a law unto herself with respect to this issue.
It is my position that even feminists understand the ultimate reality of abortion... that it is the untimely killing of unborn children.
I wrote previously:
“…By lobbying against selective abortion, feminists prove what the pro-life folks have been screaming for years:
That aborted babies are not lifeless clumps of flesh, but actual human beings, deserving of legal protection.
This admission diametrically opposes the idea that a woman has the "right to choose". A woman does not have the right to choose murder, because no woman is justified for murdering another human being. Women ARE NOT special people who are exempt from the laws of God and man.
This admission, that these girl babies are human beings with a right to exist, is an implied acceptance of the fact that a woman, upon accepting a man's life-giving sperm and being impregnated by his seed, is no longer sovereign in her person.
She becomes just one piece of a Triad: Mother--Father--Child.
Her body is no longer her own. The unborn child, and the father of that child, via a sacred marriage covenant, both have claim over her. She is no longer autonomous, but beholden to both.
The Mistress becomes a handmaiden.
This is something that no feminist can ever accept. To the feminist, a woman is an autonomous being beholden to no one.”
I await your responses!
Kumogakure of Kumogakure School.
On the other hand, as a response to the "porn gives men unrealistic expectations about what 'real women' will look like/do in bed that I won't be able to live up to", well, its hard to see that argument as anything other than glorified jealousy.
well--it might be worth unpacking "jealousy," in that instance. jealous of WHAT, exactly, is the question. is it -really- jealousy of the looks, how the woman lives? or is it: fear that what she has will be taken away from her. and: fury that she did everything that she was "supposed to," was the "good girl," and here's the "bad girl, the whore," getting away with easy pickin's. sure, call it "selling out to the patriarchy" if you want to. how i read that is: "fuck you for getting away with everything i was told i had to avoid in order to live the sort of life i see you as living now, and the one i don't think i ever will."
From Roe v Wade:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
"... The third reason is the State's interest(via it's Police Power to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals--) -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone...
... On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.
The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life…
…B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned..."
What the Justices are saying here is the same as what I said earlier:
While in most cases, a woman is sovereign in her person, she is still subject to the State's Police Power just like every other citizen of the U.S. of A.
A right to have an abortion is not absolute.
Kumo.
IACB:
As a knee-jerk statement, "ur just jealous" is an ad hominem argument, clearly. On the other hand, as a response to the "porn gives men unrealistic expectations about what 'real women' will look like/do in bed that I won't be able to live up to", well, its hard to see that argument as anything other than glorified jealousy.
Yes and no, I think (sorry, I forgot I posted here and only caught in on tertiary review). If all of the women on TV painted themselves blue, and if all porn featured women painted blue, I could see, for example, disliking that all women in media are painted blue without necessarily WANTING to be painted blue.
Silly substitution, but I hope the point is clear. Jealousy MAY BE the motivator, but it isn't necessarily.
There is a certain attitude toward sex - the GGG of Dan Savage - which to people who are used to the paridigm being "there is one standard you shall live by" seeing this as yet another bludgioning tool to get them to do something they don't really want to do. In such a light, i can easily see objecting to porn. If what some of these women have said - that their bfs/gfs wanted them to mimic pornography or pointed to porn as some sort of evidence "real women" did sex act X - then the disagreement with porn carries more weight than jealousy.
The trick is, I think, a realization that the new sitch isn't "do what I [demanding partner] want and you don't even have your 'ladies don't do that' defense" it's "do what you want; don't do what you don't want to do." That's the missing piece, imo.
Kumogature:
Spoken like a true misogynistic fascist.
No, the right to abortion isn't absolute...but to say that a woman's right not to get pregnant against her will stops when she gets impregnated, and that the man who impregnated her should have a full veto over her decision whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will....well, that to me is the ultimate of misogyny.
Especially when the other party in this matter doesn't care much about his responsiblilty in inpregnating her to begin with.
ESPECIALLY when the other party cares less about HIS responsibility not to impose himself on her against her will (I guess that women who are pregnant due to rape or incest should be told that the "responsible" thing to do is to keep the child and then give it up for "adoption"?? Which would basically make her nothing more than a subhuman baby factory for the local adoption market??)
There are already more than enough planned and wanted pregnancies in this world for women to have to endure being forced to bear unwanted pregnancies merely for your approval.
And how interesting that while you are sooooo opposed to the basic principle of Roe, you are so willing to quote out of context from that same ruling to support your notion that abortion is murder and that the state has the right to use state law to control it out of existence. Make up your mind, please.
When people like you are as concerned with the health and viability of real people outside the womb as you are with protecting fetuses, then I might be able to take your arguments seriously as something other than attempts at controlling and regulating women. Til then, though, take it somewhere else.
Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Not yours.
Anthony
Anthony said, "but to say that a woman's right not to get pregnant against her will stops when she gets impregnated, and that the man who impregnated her should have a full veto over her decision whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will....well, that to me is the ultimate of misogyny."
I am of the opinion that abortion is allowable in limited circumstances. Remember that I said that a woman's right to infanticide is not absolute. I do support abortion on a VERY limited basis.
I support abortion being legal in the cases of Rape, Incest, and Medical threat to the life of the mother.
So the "get pregnant against her will" part that you speak of has been addressed.
"And how interesting that while you are sooooo opposed to the basic principle of Roe, you are so willing to quote out of context from that same ruling to support your notion that abortion is murder and that the state has the right to use state law to control it out of existence. Make up your mind, please."
I am very careful, before I take a position on a subject, to do the research beforehand.
Judging from your reaction, and the majority of the opinion on this thread, you were not aware that even SCOTUS acknowledges that, once again, the right of a woman to have an abortion, is not absolute.
In addition:
http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/search?q=justice+abortion
"Please note, that in a previous post, we determined that the legal reasoning involved in the Roe decision was as weak as water.
Scientific evidence that was and is available both before and after the Court's decision, contradict the main premise of the Roe decision, that a fetus is not considered viable until AFTER a certain time period of the woman's pregnancy, and during the period of non-viability, abortion is permitted.
The evidence clearly shows that life does indeed begin at conception, and subsequently, the State, via its Police Power to regulate the Health, Welfare, Safety, and Morals of the citizenry, is fully within its power to enforce restrictions upon abortion procedures."
In other words friend, Roe was wrongfully decided, and the Justices who voted in favor of Roe clearly ignored the crucial evidence that was widely available to them. Please see my post for links and proofs.
So far, you have not made any substantial headway in your attempt to knock down my reasoning.
"When people like you are as concerned with the health and viability of real people outside the womb as you are with protecting fetuses, then I might be able to take your arguments seriously as something other than attempts at controlling and regulating women. Til then, though, take it somewhere else."
People like me? You don't know me.
I am concerned about murder in all forms, including the slaughter of innocent potential children, since on demand abortion is what we are debating here.
As to your assertion that my goal is to "regulate and control women"...
My response is that EVERY citizen is regulated and controlled by the State Police Power.
A doctor cannot choose to use his hands in order to perform surgery on a person who does not need the surgery.
A police officer cannot act outside of his or her guidelines, laws, and statues, and choose to use his body, and use lethal force against a criminal with absolute impunity at all times and in all cases.
Just as you and I cannot lawfully and morally burn down a hospital filled with innocent patients, a woman cannot "choose" to use her body, pick up a handgun, and shoot someone.
Under your line of reasoning, since a woman is autonomous in her actions at all times, and is not subject to the Police Power of the State, then she is not liable for her actions if she exercises her "Right to Choose" in order to commit murder.
Any rational person would conclude, as The Supreme Court of the United States concluded, that a woman is NOT absolutely sovereign in her person with respect to abortion.
She is beholden to other people, and she MUST respect the rights of those persons, born and unborn.
We are barred from exercising absolute autonomy by the Police Power of the State, Male and female, black and white, rich or poor, pure and simple.
Except in the case of Rape, Incest, or Medical life threatening necessity, women have NO absolute right to murder children, period.
"Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Not yours."
A flawed line of thinking, which I have already proven as such; and unfortunately, a slogan that you have not defended properly.
Show me your evidence! Show me your logic.
I await your reply!
Kumogakure.
Well....this may be dated, but better late than never, I say.
Since Kumo laid down the gauntlet, allow me to pick it back up and load it up with the truth.
Let us review:
Anthony said, "but to say that a woman's right not to get pregnant against her will stops when she gets impregnated, and that the man who impregnated her should have a full veto over her decision whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will....well, that to me is the ultimate of misogyny."
I am of the opinion that abortion is allowable in limited circumstances. Remember that I said that a woman's right to infanticide is not absolute. I do support abortion on a VERY limited basis.
I support abortion being legal in the cases of Rape, Incest, and Medical threat to the life of the mother.
So the "get pregnant against her will" part that you speak of has been addressed.
Oh, so you take the "moderate" position on abortion, allowing for instances of rape, incest and the life of the mother. All fine and good...but a bit inconsistent with what you write later. I mean, if you truly believe that abortion is murder of an "unborn child" and worthy of the highest punishnents, then why would you allow for such exceptions??? That would be like saying, "I'm against murder and support the death penalty for those convicted of murder..but I'd allow for exceptions for those who commit murder on the basis of self-defense. Can't have it both ways, dewd...especially when you make such overwrought claims about the other side.
"And how interesting that while you are sooooo opposed to the basic principle of Roe, you are so willing to quote out of context from that same ruling to support your notion that abortion is murder and that the state has the right to use state law to control it out of existence. Make up your mind, please."
I am very careful, before I take a position on a subject, to do the research beforehand.
Judging from your reaction, and the majority of the opinion on this thread, you were not aware that even SCOTUS acknowledges that, once again, the right of a woman to have an abortion, is not absolute.
Oh, gee, Kumo.....so you are a freakin' expert on reproductive biology; enough that you give yourself the power to impose your bias on others?? Ooooooh, I'm really skeeeered!!! Not.
Besides, the Supreme Court in their Roe decision was well aware that "the right to abortion was not absolute"...which is why they set up the principle of progressively more stringent limitations based on gestation period (the longer that the fetus develops within the woman's body, the more legal protections they get.) But then again, how many women who are forced to undergo pregnancy against their will actually wait until their third trimester to decide to actually "kill their baby"?? Unless, of course, they are coerced into third-term abortions by antiabortion activists shaming them about their innate irresponsibility as "sluts" for their own situation....or simply driving the black market for adoption.
Now, if you can find any advocate for reproductive choice who deliberately advocates third-trimester abortions for any reason other than to save the mother's life and thus enable her to carry other wanted pregnancies, I will shake your hand and give you a bit more respect. I'd say, though, that they only exist in your imagination.
But let's move on, shall we??
http://kumogakure.blogspot.com/search?q=justice+abortion
"Please note, that in a previous post, we determined that the legal reasoning involved in the Roe decision was as weak as water.
Scientific evidence that was and is available both before and after the Court's decision, contradict the main premise of the Roe decision, that a fetus is not considered viable until AFTER a certain time period of the woman's pregnancy, and during the period of non-viability, abortion is permitted.
The evidence clearly shows that life does indeed begin at conception, and subsequently, the State, via its Police Power to regulate the Health, Welfare, Safety, and Morals of the citizenry, is fully within its power to enforce restrictions upon abortion procedures."
In other words friend, Roe was wrongfully decided, and the Justices who voted in favor of Roe clearly ignored the crucial evidence that was widely available to them. Please see my post for links and proofs.
So far, you have not made any substantial headway in your attempt to knock down my reasoning.
Riiiiiight...that would be the same scientific evidence used by Sam Berg and Melissa Fairley to justify their "90% of all "prostituted women" want to get out of the sex industry" meme, ehhh???
And which "evidence" would that be that "proves" in any way that "life begins at conception"?? The same evidence that says that homosexuals really do choose their "lifestyle" (and as such can be coerced out of it and be "saved")??? The same evidence that says that Black folk really are inferior intellectually to White people (especially those White folk who think like you..unless they convert to your point of view)??? Pardon me if I'm more than a bit underwhelmed, Kumo.
Oh, and BTW...it doesn't help your argument that you decide to focus your wrath on me personally (the title of your initial essay in that link you provided, for the rest tho are reading is called "Against Anthony") for calling out your bullshit...and no, references to Alex Hamilton, the Bible, and Ron Paul doesn't do much to buttress your nonsense any more than claiming to want to rescue ME from my own apparent lack of your vision. It only makes you out to be more of a pompous jackass.
And BTW, it's not as if the Supremes haven't made decisions that have been roundly criticized as wrong by numerous cranks Left, Right, and Center.
[Moi] "When people like you are as concerned with the health and viability of real people outside the womb as you are with protecting fetuses, then I might be able to take your arguments seriously as something other than attempts at controlling and regulating women. Til then, though, take it somewhere else."
[Response by Kumo] People like me? You don't know me. I am concerned about murder in all forms, including the slaughter of innocent potential children, since on demand abortion is what we are debating here.
Oh, now, come on...."innocent POTENTIAL children"??? I thought that you considered fetuses to be FULL children deserving of FULL rights to live...how else would you dismiss "abortion on demand" as full-blown murder???
And not knowing me at all doesn't stop you from making all kinds of assumptions and pronouncements in your nice long essay....so why should it stop me from making assumptions about you??
As to your assertion that my goal is to "regulate and control women"...
My response is that EVERY citizen is regulated and controlled by the State Police Power.
A doctor cannot choose to use his hands in order to perform surgery on a person who does not need the surgery.
Oh, really??? I know some HMO's that would disagree with that sentiment....and who are you to decide whether or not a patient needs surgery or not??? I thought that that was a personal decision between the patient and his/her doctor.
And...while we are regulated by the power of government and "police power", such power is tempered and balanced by fundamental rights and procedures and protocols that protect innocent people froom being abused by such powers.
A police officer cannot act outside of his or her guidelines, laws, and statues, and choose to use his body, and use lethal force against a criminal with absolute impunity at all times and in all cases.
Just as you and I cannot lawfully and morally burn down a hospital filled with innocent patients, a woman cannot "choose" to use her body, pick up a handgun, and shoot someone.
Actually, Kumo, she can...if she can claim in a court of law that her physical being was threatened by force and threat of death. Don't you remember something called "the right to bear arms??" and "the right of self-defemse"???
And how touching that you now defend limits on police powers....one paragraph after you use the same concept of "police powers" to justify laws constraining the individual rights of people. Either there is a right to privacy and a limit to government power against the individual or there isn't.....you just can't have it both ways.
Under your line of reasoning, since a woman is autonomous in her actions at all times, and is not subject to the Police Power of the State, then she is not liable for her actions if she exercises her "Right to Choose" in order to commit murder.
Any rational person would conclude, as The Supreme Court of the United States concluded, that a woman is NOT absolutely sovereign in her person with respect to abortion.
She is beholden to other people, and she MUST respect the rights of those persons, born and unborn.
Once again, you contradict yourself, Kumo....first you say that the Supreme Court should have no jursdiction whatsoever in the matter of "police power" and that their ruling in Roe is fundamentally illegitimate; then you cite that very ruling by the very same court as a justification for your absolutist position against "abortion on demand". Does the right side of your brain know what the far-right side is thinking???
"Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Not yours."
A flawed line of thinking, which I have already proven as such; and unfortunately, a slogan that you have not defended properly.
Ahhh...sez you???
Let's see...your position is chuck full of contraditions, self-assertions, ad-hominens, fallacies, and just plain bullshit designed to cover up your fundamental racism and misogyny....but I'm the one with the flawed argument??
Sorry to disappoint 'ya, Kumo, but this is still the 21st century, not the 15th; some of us really do believe that the fundamental principle of equality and respect for individual choice does matter....regardless of what "police power" decides to impose its will. The basic concept that women are equal to men and are deserving of the same rights and responsibilities as men -- in short, the notion that they are human beings -- is the fundamental foundation behind the idea of "her body, her choice, her decision".
You wanted evidence, Kumo..and now you have it. Now, either come back with a better game, or kindly SYAD and STFU....and try not to be such an asshole next time.
Maybe about three months late in response, but more than worth it.
Anthony
Post a Comment