In some ways, my own silence on the issues of the past several weeks has surprised me. I have a reputation for writing about feminist issues—by which I mean anything that pertains to the notion that women are entitled to the same inalienable human rights that men are.
Nothing less.
For a while, I felt that I—along with some other prominent feminist bloggers—were voices crying in the wilderness. While other folks were focused on the "big" issues, I could not stop talking about Plan B, abortion rights, contraception, whether women were entitled to buy sex toys in places like Texas and Mississippi—essentially anything that pertained to women and control of their bodies.
I have this fundamental belief—and yes, on this issue, you can call me a fundamentalist—that women cannot be truly equal in a culture unless they are allowed to control their own bodies. That they can control what enters their bodies, what they choose to carry within their bodies, that they can make decisions about their sexual needs and desires free of government interference. For me, these issues are so bedrock, so fundamental to what it means to be a human being in this free democracy we so proudly proclaim to the world, that I have privileged this belief above other issues that some folks have told me are more important.
And so, given my reputation for speaking out about these issues, one would think that I would have been one of the first ones to voice my objections to the various bills in front of state legislatures, and the outrageous pronouncements of the Republican candidates, which no longer even pretend that they're about protecting the rights of fetuses, but which are, without apology, direct attacks on a woman's right to be anything other than a baby-making factory.
You'll forgive me for my lack of outrage. If anything, I'm exhausted and angry—along with many of my feminist allies—that some folks refused to see this coming. Of course, the issue was about controlling women, keeping them out of the public sphere, denying them any access to real power. It's obvious: how can you function as a political creature if you are perpetually pregnant?
We were told we were overreacting when we tried to hold Democrats to account when they allowed G.W. Bush to appoint to the SCOTUS men who were actively opposed to women's reproductive rights. We were lectured by people we thought should be our allies—people like Dan Savage—who told us that we should hold our noses and vote for candidates like Casey in Pennsylvania. We were fed the myth that even though Casey holds radical views about women, that, once in the Senate, party discipline would keep these types of Democrats under control. Well, guess who one of the Democrats who voted for the Blunt Amendment was?
We were scolded for being "single-issue" voters, for failing to see the big picture, for being selfish.
Well, you know what?
We knew what was coming. We knew that these "little" issues were part of a much larger social agenda that would seek to put women back in their place within the home. We knew that what was at stake was our basic humanity. And again and again, we were told that we were focused on boutique issues when more important issues should be occupying us.
Of course, we were capable of thinking about reproductive issues and other issues before us. We are capable of doing two things at one time. But I am fighting with myself because my gut reaction to all the folderol that the Republicans have produced in the past few months that seek to deny women their humanity is I Told You So. Not a mature reaction. Not a constructive reaction. But I feel as if some of us have been begging politicians to pay attention to what was happening to the erosion of women's rights in this country for the past couple of decades.
I apologize for feeling that way. I apologize that I haven't been able to muster the energy to get galvanized around the new issues before us. Because they're not new. They've been there for years. And I just find myself feeling angry that it took the sort of high-stakes attacks on women's rights to get some folks to pay attention.
Especially the Democrats. The Democrats, who seemed to spend the entire Bush administration breaking my heart with their refusal to take this stuff seriously. And now, suddenly, the Democrats want to proclaim themselves women's best friends—oh, and by the way, will I donate to the party now as it seeks to finally do its job and stand up for women?
I will do what I have always done. I will make my contributions to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the other women's groups who never lost sight of these issues. I will remind all of us that women matter. We have always mattered. We welcome you into the tent.
But I warn the Democrats. If this is temporary, if you are going to take advantage of the cold-blooded attempts by Republicans to strip women of their rights only to get distracted as soon as the heat is off, I will not forget.
I will continue to argue, to work in the ways that I can, to argue that women are humans, too. I'd like to believe that this is a real turning point, that folks are finally going to get what has been at stake all this time.
But I'm angry that it took what has amounted to the nuclear option to finally get someone's attention.
Because, you see, I told you so.
This post was cross-posted at Does This Make Sense?


Salon.com
Comments
Kind of like those youngsters (and some not so youngster) who see/hear of tragedy and think "That happens to other people, not me." like they can't grasp the fact that *someone is always going to be* 'other people'..
Tired, angry, frustrated.. scared.. all of that and more beyond words.
Rated for the hoarse voices in the wilderness.
Any woman who would vote for these neanderthals deserves to be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
Women are the majority of voters. Strike back!
Don't let anyone turn back the clock. As a teen in tthe '50s I remember when you couldn't buy rubbers in Connecticut and women I bedded douched with lysol befor and after.
I remember Bill Baird.
Great work. / r
So good to see a post from you here.
Rated.
I understand your need to defend the Democrats. But, I'm sorry, my "self-interest" is the interest of over half the population. John, you at least seem to get it. Matt, apparently it's your party right or wrong, and those of us who want to criticize the party for refusing to defend half the country's population are just being whiny and self-indulgent. Oh, if only you could have a uterus for a day. Things might look different when the threat is staring you in the face.
and you sold a shirt by the way :D
I like to think this is a one step back in the two-steps-forward movement.
Wake up, America. The real sharia movement has infected America ever since the Southern Strategy first reared its racist reptilian head, and it has been in full de-flower since Richard Nixon first appealed to the Silent Majority.
That "majority" was never a majority, and it was never silent either. Now its shouting from the rooftops and the television and vomiting from the mouths of Presidential candidates, each seeking to outdo the other with wingnut, racist rhetoric. It's already running the show in DC from the closeted confines of Street.
If those who value liberty don't awaken soon, it's all over but the shoutin' Hosannas to the New Pharisees.
amsterdam slotenmaker Van huisdeur tot kluisdeur alles
wordt 24uur p/d vakkundig en snel geopend, geplaatst en herstelt .
.........(¯`v´¯) (¯`v´¯)
☼•*¨`*•.¸.(ˆ◡ˆ).¸.•*
............... *•.¸.•* ♥⋆★•❥ Thanx (ツ) & ♥ L☼√Ξ ☼ ♥
⋆───★•❥ ☼ .¸¸.•*`*•.♥ (ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★(ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★
Rights are generally established through political action, from democratic action to revolution. The most obvious case is that when a populace is feeling oppressed in a particular way, they fight to relieve that oppression and define that relief as a right. So, no taxation without representation, no deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In order to maintain the balance of power between the public and the government, we define as rights those things that shift power to the people, such as freedom of press and freedom from state religion.
The types of oppression that result in the definition of rights are the basic threats to survival which come from government, and also from other people. These are obvious. We have a right not to be killed by either our neighbor or our government, maybe of us believe at all, but at least without a powerful reason. But threats can be financial, such as having your property taken or being excluded from earning a living.
Rights are not in any real sense "natural" but they make intuitive sense in that they fit with cultural perspectives. So, in another culture, the right of a parent to pick a spouse for their child might be sacrosanct, whereas in our culture, we deem the individual to have the final say about whom they have an intimate relationship. Cultural values have resulted in the codification of such rights as the right to marry and to procreate. Cultures also focus compassion, so that we might base things like the rights of the accused or the imprisoned on our sense of what is fair to average people. A critical case in establishing the right to procreate actually involved a prisoner scheduled to be castrated. Culture changes. As Justice O'Conner put it, there are evolving standards of decency. We used not to think children had a right to be protected from parental violence; we now think they do.
Then--the part Catnlion might be questioning--there are rights that are obvious for some groups, and which other groups object to being excluded from. An obvious example is the right of heterosexuals to marry, while homosexuals can't. Ultimately, rights must be validated by the judiciary, which is increasingly finding no justification for this distinction.
Foremost among unequally distributed rights is the right to control your own body, a right which is unquestioned for men and eternally challenged for women. But of course, the question has to be examined in its practical sense. Does the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body mean that she has the right to insurance coverage? Are her rights outweighed by the embryo or fetus's? Ultimately, no right means anything if there are serious financial or procedural obstacles to exercising it. Like it or not, the courts have had to deal with the question of whether a right in the abstract is truly a right when there is no practical way of obtaining it.
So, there is no one place where rights come from. We decide what our rights are, and we attempt to make them universal, if only because our fundamental document, the Constitution, insists it has to be that way.
Some rights arise from strong cultural aspirations, so
AND I have never voted repugnican't in my life.
-R-