I have amended my title (from "Women Haters") because I want people to better understand my point, rather than get angry about it and not understand. Also, I would like to add a note here. I've read much of the other sides of this issue, and even people on "my side" have different views. In fact, I want to make the point that pro-life and pro-choice are really vague constructs, and I do not want to stand behind either because I am both. My point in this blog was to argue the ideas of putting faith in front of legality and that our culture really pushes horrible images of women and yet expects us all to achieve this ideal of womanhood that is not realistic nor healthy nor in line with our beliefs. Do we want our children to show their naked bodies on TV or to think that sex is bad?
I just want people to read another view. The only way we can come to an understanding of each other--which is important--is to really listen, read, and respond to each other. We can learn from each other.
Here are my points, though I may be preaching to the choir; however, maybe some pro-lifers will read this, too.
Point one--we have freedom of religion. Keep yours to yourself. Yes, it is part of who you are, agreed. No matter who you are, you CANNOT force it on me or make laws that force it on me. Leave religious "rules" out of the secular field. That is the way the country is set up.
My second point is that democracy means making laws according to the people. So, if we all vote to make the USA a country based on a particular faith and the tenants of that faith, THEN religious rules are applicable. And, for those who argue that the Constitution is based on Christianity and the "faith" of the founding fathers, then you need to go back and hit the books. Some of these "fathers" might have been Christians, but they were of many different belief systems. They also agreed on freedom of religion and put that into the document. Yes, they used phrases like "under God," and those are common phrases to use. Basing an argument on the phrase "under God" or what is written on currency is NOT realistically studying constitutional law, and constitutional law is how our system, a democracy, works.
My third point is about this hatred of women that is oh so strong in our culture and is splattered about the news and our televisions. People are taking away women's rights to abortion, but they are not making equal laws to prohibit men from impregnating women. They do not enforce mandatory child support or parenting classes of either parent, and they do not make any laws about the "father" sticking it out with the child. So, the woman is vilified if she seeks to abort, while the male involved is, well, whatever he wants to be. He could be the one who wants the abortion, he could be clueless, he could be an abusive father or other relative/family friend, he could be a rapist, or he could be a complete stranger. The thing he is not is held accountable like the woman. The woman is hated. She is bad if she keeps the child and begins a process of poverty and abuse. She is hated if she sticks it out and raises a child on her own. She is hated if she gives up the child to someone else. She is hated if she has to have a "shotgun wedding" because she and the boyfriend go pregnant. She is hated if she aborts. She is hated for having sex in the first place. Geez, why don't we just all wear burkas so people don't have to see us since even existing is hateful?
Disturbing Issues of Woman Hatred in Our Democracy
First, we have lawmakers in South Dakota who hate women; a man makes a decision to ban abortions (thanks Gov Rounds and cronies). Oh, but if the woman is in danger of dying from a tubal pregnancy or wicked diabetes, they will "let" her have an abortion. Thanks.
Is it just me, or are we in the dark ages again? Back when people didn't wash their hands and threw their waste into the streets and passed around venereal diseases? Are people really, seriously this uneducated and this unforgiving?
We have Roe v. Wade. It is there for a reason. People have sex. Yes, they do. They even enjoy it (a different argument). And, people have had sex and enjoyed it forEVER. There have also been rapes and incest forEVER. And, forEVER, people have made personal choices about their bodies--women and men. When people have sex, they can get pregnant. And, that is their business. It IS. It is a choice (in many cases, but think back to the rape and incest (probably also rape). Why is this a choice? Well, number one, we live in the United States of America, home of the free and brave. We live where we proclaim and boast (to the world, I might add) of our many freedoms. We even try to get other countries to practice democracy (Iraq? Afghanistan?) when we see that repressive regimes take away people's rights.
Are we back to the old idea of "men being created equal"? Is that the problem? Can we not see that women are equal anymore? I thought we did, and I thought that was some of the justification for helping Iraq and Afghanistan with democracy--to help the women who have been objectified and enslaved by religious fanatics, forced to live and breathe according to sadistic laws created by people misusing scripture to keep people down and weak. HELLO! This is what they are doing in South Dakota and in Mississippi.
Second, we have lawmakers in Mississippi who are joining the fight to hate women, especially poor women and their children. And, again, there is no mention of an equal law for the men who impregnate these women. Great work, Steve Holland—a democrat btw. When your state is suffering from the wounds of Katrina, from low quality education and even lower teacher pay, from poverty, and from a backlash of segregation practices, you think you are making strides by legislating hatred of women? Way to help your state. Way to come across as being backward and way to waste taxpayer money with the lawsuits you are inciting because your state can really afford any of this.
My final point about woman hating, though there are so many more to mention. Imette St. Guillen is dead. She was brutalized in every horrible manner because someone hated her. Someone hated her enough to hurt her, make her fight for her life, rape her, mutilate her genitals, chop off her hair, tape her face, and kill her. Someone hated her enough to leave her on a roadside. This person hated her for being a woman. And, the frightening thing is that the minute “certain people” read the article and see that she was out at bars (yes, more than one) until early in the morning, that person will think, “Oh, well, she had it coming to her because women who frequent bars are loose.” That person is also a woman hater. No one has the right to kill, we all know this. Or cut, or rape, or even to hate to the point of violence. No one has that right, but people feel like they have that right. Why? Because there are people who pass laws and who pass judgments on women for having sex, for going to bars, for having children, and for deciding not to have children. When woman hating is all over the media (in all its mediums), it is easy to believe that most people think it is okay.
It is not okay. Imette is dead. Women in South Dakota and Mississippi are having their rights taken away. Women are being hated and hurt and un-equalized.
Oh, yes, and the latest research says that people know more about the Simpsons than the constitution. Yes, it shows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Using the term "murder" is using a term with much meaning behind it--a spin. We all do this when we feel strongly about an issue.
The definition of woman-hating--as I use it and as many use it--refers to the disregard of women's rights. Rights to her body, rights to her faith, rights to her financial choices, rights to her ideas, and rights to expect protection from her government for these rights that have been promised.
Until the consititution is amended, women have these rights.
In regard to the multilation, the criminalization (in regards to being sexual), and the objectification of women, I think that "hate" is an appropriate word.
No, the circumstances of a pregnancy are not the fault of the fetus. And, in many, many cases, the fault is not in the mother, either. No matter the fault or lack thereof, these cases are very individualized and to say that abortion is always wrong is fallcious. This is why people have been given the choice, MEN and women, to make a choice.
Abortion IS murder, plain and simple. If the definition of murder is "the ending of life", then how is abortion not murder??
Secondly, noone on the pro-life side is disregarding the woman's right to choose. She can choose whether or not she has sex. She can choose to use protection. But once that baby is concieved, who's looking after it's rights? That baby has done no wrong, and yet you advocate having the choice to put that child to death.
If this were just about the woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her body/life, then ok, you'd have a point.
But the pro-choice movement consistently overlooks the fact that the woman isn't the only person affected by this horrid decision. This child is affected a whole heck of a lot more than the woman is.
The woman may be "inconvenienced" by being pregnant and giving birth, but if she chooses an abortion, it's a life or death decision for that child.
I, as most in the pro-life movement, think that the only reason abortion should be legal is when giving birth threatens the life of the mother to a degree where her death would be practically assured. Personally, me and my wife have discussed it, and we'd take our chances. She believes that she has been given the chance at life, and her child should too, even if it costs her her own life. But I wouldn't expect every person to make that same decision.
The definition is not plain and simple, and to argue that is invalid. It is a complex issue that is based on personal belief, on legal precedence, on social mores, and on constitutional law. It is far from simple, and that is why we cannot agree.
The legal definition of murder is the unlawful ending of life; people break the law when they kill someone in a bank robbery. Abortion, however you may feel about the right or wrong of it, does not fall under that legal definition because it is legal. This is similar to the death penalty--it is legal (in some states) to end life (and, again, many argue ove rthe right and wrong of this issue in a similar vein). Now, is abortion right or wrong? Well, it may be wrong according to your faith, and that is legitamate. However, faith does not make the laws. That is NOT illegal.
The pro-choice movement is a huge generalization. You put everyone into the same bucket, and that is not valid. What I mean, and many others feel this way, is that there needs to be the choice--the option, just in case. This doesn't mean that I condone willful misuse of the practice or the disregard for life. Right now, with my circumstances and beliefs, I wouldn't have an abortion. But then, I am not pregnant.
You make some valid points. They are based on faith and a moral system, based on faith. These are valid, but they do not enter the legal field in a country where we have freedom of religion.
Again, grouping people weakens your points. ALL women who have abortions are not "inconvenienced" just as ALL pro-lifers do not share your views. You need to qualify (set boundaries) your statements to make stronger points.
Post a Comment