More Angry Blogging!

[laceblade]

Abortion Disclaimer!!
If you decide to comment on this post, please focus your thoughts on the topic at hand. The subject of the post is about HOW abortion is discussed, not on the morality of abortion itself. Please keep your personal feelings about whether abortion is right/wrong to your own blog.

---

I picked up Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism from the library, and wasn't a huge fan. Rants are sometimes cool in blogs, but I guess I expected a higher caliber of analysis, and didn't get it. Of course, there were a couple of quotes in particular that sent me into a fiery rage.

Don't have sex with someone who is anti-choice - They have no respect for your body or your ability to make decisions for yourself.

Where is this "no respect" for a woman's body coming from? Desecration of a body is a serious wrong, and it's exactly what concerns many pro-life people about abortion - this discarding of one body in favor of another. The issue of abortion is weighty and important. I don't think anybody denies this. People who decide to have abortions are not flippant about it, even though they are deeply concerned for their bodies. Likewise, people who decide not to have abortions do not think "Well, I have to have this baby and that's that." Maybe their lives will suck more. It's a serious decision that women grapple with; I think that both the pro-life crowd and the pro-choice crowd can agree on that. Neither choice is easy.

I guess my point is that being pro-life is not about a lack of respect for the female body. Maybe it is for some pro-lifers - we are obviously not all the same. But I would seriously hope that none of you would dare to think that the female body is something I have no respect for, seeing as I occupy one myself. I view pregnant women and the babies they carry like Russian nesting dolls. There isn't just one body to be valued and respected: there are two.

Does this mean that I am not worthwhile enough to have sex with simply because I am pro-life? What a simplistic and awful thing to say!

Remember that anti-choicers, at the heart of it, are just folks who are horrified at the idea of pre-marital sex. They're not the arbiters of morality, just a bunch of folks who think girls should be forever virgins.

I see this all the time, and I find its placement in this book shocking, considering that Valenti spends most of the book deconstructing common straw arguments that people use against feminists, like "All feminists are ugly" and double standards and the like.

Where is her critical thinking here?! At the heart of it, pro-lifers are a bunch of haters who are disgusted by the idea of pre-marital sex, who think that women must always remain virgins?

I just....GAH. Not all of us are blindly shaking our moralistic fingers, okay? I guess I'm just disappointed in the author because she spends the entire book deconstructing statements that are easy to say, but pass your opponent off as a straw person by shaming them. But then she gos and pulls the same bullshit. Supposedly, the book should convince women to be feminists, but if I wasn't already a feminist, I would be so insulted that it wouldn't get me very far.

I am sick of feeling insulted wherever I go. In church, I feel like I'm walking on glass because someone might say something anti-gay that pisses me off, but I feel the exact same way when I'm at Room of One's Own or Wiscon or with feminist friends and people start talking about "those religious people."

Comments

[were-duck.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've heard some negative things about that book before, that it's a big rant and wouldn't really convince anyone to become a feminist who wasn't already one. I completely agree with your criticism of her arguments! I gave up reading her blog a while ago because I didn't like the way she demonized/stereotyped groups of people who don't agree with her.

I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable at Room/WisCon/with feminists!

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

I should point out that it's not an over-prevalent feeling.....like, my feeling of comfort when with feminists outweighs potential discomfort. It's just one of those intersectionalities that makes things awkward once in a while.

[were-duck.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. I sometimes feel that way as a geek among gays (though obviously being a geek obviously doesn't operate on the same register as religion does).

<3

[ladyjax.livejournal.com]

I haven't read FFF but I'd heard enough that I was annoyed, if only because of much of what you just printed out above.

I hate that kind of simplistic thinking - it's what makes arguments of about choice so facile these days.

Maybe I'm just getting a lot more cranky as I get older but then again, folks like Valente seem to think that all of second wave feminism was horrific and bad, which is what I came out of.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm sure there are much better books out there! I think it's what bothers me the most about political discussions, is people making the other group into some simplistic label, like "brainwashed Christians" or "crackpot liberals." I think everyone wants a better life, and we'd probably be farther along the way if people weren't hyper-polarized.

Also, WTF, why hate on second wave feminism?

[heyiya.livejournal.com]

I've heard a lot of critique of that book too, particularly around its failure to deal with race in any meaningful way. From the passages you highlight, I can really see how that would be--it's a very short step from demonizing all religious people to the kinds of logics around people of color and religion/'backwardness' we saw with prop 8. I am even less likely to read the book now than I was before you read your post.

I hate the rhetoric of "pro-life" and "pro-choice," the way it polarizes into two camps who can never possibly speak to one another, when in fact there is surely more shared ground among many adherents to both camps than people would like to believe. I mean, I'm supposedly in Valenti's camp, but I'd rather have a conversation about this stuff with you or with my really awesome Dominican monk/Catholic priest cousin.

[were-duck.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

She actually refers to pro-life people as "anti-choice," but her polarization remains extreme.

I agree with pretty much everything else you said, and yeah, it does totally drop the ball with race.

[heyiya.livejournal.com]

She actually refers to pro-life people as "anti-choice,"

That's just what I mean though--it's a part of the rhetoric, right? According to the language, you're either pro choice and everyone who's against legal abortion is anti choice, or you're pro life and everyone who's in favour of legal abortion is anti life. The very terminology encodes the impossibility of having common ground with the other side!

[nearlymay.livejournal.com]

It doesn't make sense to me to divide people up as either "pro-choice" or "pro-life". I identify as pro-choice because I believe abortion should be legal. I also think it is wrong for a woman to have unprotected sex because she knows she can have an abortion if she needs to. (I appreciate the inherent sexism in that, but I stand by it.)

I feel bad about your pan-insultable position. I'm not sure what you can do about it in church, but when people say something about "those religious people" I think you'd be doing the BEST thing if you say "Hi! I'm a Catholic and I'm ok!" As long as you're cheerful and not apologetic, I think people are more likely to think "wait a minute, Jackie catholic AND terrific! I shouldn't make her uncomfortable by saying those things!"

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

Well, hopefully your tactic works better in real life than it has worked for me online. Whenever I call someone out online for making group-based statements about people of faith, people jump down my throat and are all, "NO, everyone should have access to abortions!" and I'm all, "That's not actually what I'm trying to argue about!" and they're like, "Actually I was raised Christian, and Christian people suck," and I'm all "DIE DIE DIE."

I guess at work, I call people out on their shit by being like, "O HAI, I'M CATHOLIC," (usually I say that verbatim, caps lock included) and it works okay. I've never had to do it with strangers, though, or maybe I've just never wanted to.

Regardless! I will employ this strategy rather than saying what would come to mind first, which would be something like, "O RLY? FUCK YOU."

[suibhne-geilt.livejournal.com]

One of the most interesting things I've noticed in my own social attitudes lately, is that I rile at a poorly made arguement or outright immature knee-jerk made to support a point I agree with more than I hate the same made to support a viewpoint I disagree with. It might be that I like to think that folks who think like me are smarter - or at least smarter than that.

As I've realized, though, how rediculous people sound when they say things like the passages you've quoted, I'm at least becoming more aware of how I may come off when I try to argue a point about something. Broad-brushing and belittling people doesn't do much good in the long run.

[brdgt.livejournal.com]

I feel like in the past decade Americans have lost the skills and will to argue respectfully with people. We just avoid issues or talk at each other. People don't seem to see a value in getting to the root disagreement. I find that when I get there with someone, it's a really useful conversation because it's not based on us converting each other, but understanding each other.

[owlface1.livejournal.com]

i was going to go off on how i am kinda pro-life, and very religious, and have had tons of pre marital sex, but then i realized that i have had way more *extra* marital sex. alas.

[sasha-feather.livejournal.com]

This is a fabulous post! I think you should go to law school.

I'm also really sorry that you feel insulted wherever you go. :(

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

I should be careful! I don't feel insulted wherever I go [and yes, I know that I said verbatim that I did!]. Like, nobody at Room has ever insulted me. I just feel anxious, or like I always have to be ready for a fight.

[tigrin.livejournal.com]

What that author says is obviously too extreme, but I'm going to be the dissenting voice here and say that I still think what she said holds. Even if you value both lives, you are still showing favoritism if you exclude the woman's right to choose by upholding the rights of the unborn child. I'm sure people would argue that the child's right to life over-ride's the woman's right to what happens with her own body (or even her life, in the case that the pregnancy could kill her). The abortion debate seems to be more about a war of values than anything else.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it can be construed as showing a favoritism, but I was just disgusted by her insinuation that all pro-lifers have no respect for the female body.

[angels-ember.livejournal.com]

The first part I agree with to a point...mostly in regards to a woman with a man. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in a position where I got pregnant, but the baby-daddy took me to court to force me to have the baby. As I've said before - my health issues are a big factor in my decision to not have kids. And I would chose my own life over my baby's...especially if it meant spending a year being absolutely miserable and losing my job. So as far as I'm concerned, even if the father is willing to care for the child, my life is the one that will be affected the most by the pregnancy and birth. Which means that it's my choice. (I know that pro-lifers will tell me that it's the baby's life that's affected most of all...but honestly, I don't think that I'd be doing that baby any favors by giving birth to it and adopting it out. Trust me - nobody deserves my medical history!!!)

The second part is just complete and total bullshit.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

Okay, am I wrong here? Abortion is legal in the U.S. [See Roe v. Wade] Why would a man be able to take you to court to force you to have the baby? How could that even happen?

I don't know. Like, in my relationship, my boyfriend is pro-choice and I am pro-life. He understands that in being pro-choice, it's MY choice, and I would choose to have a baby if we were to have sex, and if I were to get pregnant. I guess my biggest point is just that I feel it would be a shame if relationships like this could not exist simply because of differing views on abortion, if every woman decided that she could only have sex if her partner shared her views on abortion (especially assuming that they used at least two forms of contraception!). Certainly, it is a serious discussion that should be had before having sex because both partners should be on the same page.

I understand that you feel it's your choice, and that you would choose to have an abortion, should you become pregnant. What I don't understand is how having sex with someone who happened to be pro-life would change the decision that you would make.

[antarcticlust.livejournal.com]

Reading this post brought to mind the lyric from a Le Tigre song that has felt relevant a lot recently: "I'm sorry if I'm alienating some of you - your fucking culture alienates me!" I think that a lot of this blockage stems from anger - abortion rights are very young in this country, and a lot of women feel threatened and persecuted largely on religious grounds that they often don't share.

There's a power dynamic at play that causes people to generalize, which is common in a hegemonic system. The people without power generalize those in power, and often have a difficult time seeing people as individuals who might stand outside of that generalization. It's intellectually and emotionally immature, and it's not right, but I can empathize with it because it comes from a place of pain, persecution, and disenfranchisement. I would still expect public intellectuals to be able to move past that, but obviously this woman can't.

I really empathize with you, but I don't know that "those religious people" are meant to mean you, but rather are referring to the people who are in a position of political power to threaten the rights that some people hold very, very dearly. I think it comes down to my comment above (and again, I'm trying to get at why people talk about things the way they do, NOT argue about abortion) - why can't a person's religious laws dictate their own behavior? This isn't a theocracy - the tenets of a particular faith should not be used to dictate the behavior of those who don't follow that faith. Hence many people, I think, feel threatened by the sense that they are being crusaded against - and the resulting defensiveness, anger, and hurt.

I'm genuinely sorry that you feel insulted wherever you go. I hope I never make you feel that way - I'm happy to engage and debate on any topic, and to respect your choices (for whatever reason), and I would hope that you'd respect mine, too.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

I'll respond to your comment at length, but for now I'd just like to confirm that if you insulted me, I wouldn't hang out with you!

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

So, in a reply above to antarcticlust, I kind of already explained what I view as the difference between a pseudo-theocracy and voting a certain way become my religious beliefs affect my political ones.

As an ardent supporter of separation of church and state, the two are very much not the same to me.

http://mystickeeper.livejournal.com/237354.html?thread=985130#t985130

[carabbit.livejournal.com]

Remember that anti-choicers, at the heart of it, are just folks who are horrified at the idea of pre-marital sex. They're not the arbiters of morality, just a bunch of folks who think girls should be forever virgins.

WHAT

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU