Patriarchy causes unplanned pregnancies by preventing women from having the knowledge and power to make the sexual choices that are right for them. It emphasises penis in vagina sex as the only kind of 'real' sex even though it is riskier for women than many other equally or more enjoyable sexual acts. It puts women in a situations when they have unwanted sex due to the unequal power dynamic between men and women. It infantilises women rather than encouraging them to take responsibility for their reproduction. Men are absolved of the responsibility to control their fertility because pregnancy is seen as a woman's problem and hers alone.
Even if you thought that abortion were completely morally neutral surely millions of women paying hundreds of dollars each to have a not particularly pleasant medical procedure should tell you that there's something seriously wrong with the position of women in the US.
Now, I acknowledge that even if all women were empowered to control their reproductive abilities there would still be unplanned pregnancies but there would be less. Patriarchy also means that women who do get pregnant when they didn't mean to are more likely to feel that the consequences of not having an abortion are not bearable. Our major institutions are designed for men rather than women. Despite the advances that feminism has made we are still at the stage where women are adapting themselves to fit into male institutions rather than adapting the institutions to fit them. As one of the defining differences between men and women is that men can't get pregnant, our institutions are designed for people who don't get pregnant. So women are frequently forced to drop out of education and employment because these institution will not adapt to the fact that some people get pregnant. What kind of a 'choice' is it if the alternative to abortion is exclusion from all of the institutions of political, economic and social power?
Then there is the way society expects women to be sexually available and then demonises them if that sexual activity results in pregnancy and the way that we are so intolerant of people not fitting into our ideas of perfection that the majority of fetuses that are found to have Downs Syndrome are killed before they are born. Let's not even get into the way that it is very easy for men to simply not contribute anything to the financial support of the children they father and it is very difficult for the mothers of their children to take action to force them to pay their share.
Abortion doesn't solve any of these problems; it simply makes them less visible. It pushes the burden of 'dealing' with them onto women who are then expected to be thankful that had the 'choice' to have an abortion rather than be forced into destitution by a system that only accommodates women if they don't dare to stop being doormats or pretending to be men.
That's why I get so annoyed when I see pro choice feminist schmucks kidding themselves that they've achieved some kind of feminist utopia by being allowed to use their money, their bodies and their offspring to cover up the huge injustices of our society.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
lavendersparkle- lavendersparkle
Comments
Also, I wish you well over the fast. I really like the way Beth Shalom does Yom Kippur, so I shall miss being there for the chag.
For example, I was not an oppressed teenager, I had a great education and have never once had sex because I felt compelled to. Yet, I could have ended up pregnant halfway through my degree and I would not have wanted to pause my education in order to have a baby. Even if Oxford had the sort of provision that it should do for pregnant undergraduates (which I'm very pleased to see that my college is doing something about) and my parents and the father had been entirely supportive, I simply would not have wanted to have a baby. I think that my being able to make that choice is important. I think campaigning for provision for undergraduate parents is also important. I see no contradiction in these two positions and have actively argued for both in different contexts.
I'm afraid that to open with that statement gets the entire rant filed under "Not even wrong" in my book even 'tho I agree with about 75% of it.
Firstly, the majority of abortions in the UK (I won't speak about the US because I know it less well) are caused because people screwed up. "The Patriarchy" (if such an institution exists) would prefer free contraception for all because that way there could be consequence free sex (if you have a narrow view of consequences).
Secondly, with mandatory sex-ed (albeit not always done well), contraception available for free on the NHS, and the Morning After pill available for free from A&E and many pharmacies and able to be bought from many more, I question what more you want. Other than to change
It infantilises women rather than encouraging them to take responsibility for their reproduction. Men are absolved of the responsibility to control their fertility because pregnancy is seen as a woman's problem and hers alone.
Now you're trying to have your cake and eat it. So supposedly patriarchy simultaniously claims that contraception is a woman's problem and something that a woman can not take responsibility for. The only way it could do that is by saying that it was a woman's problem and denying all access -which as I have demonstrated above isn;t what happens in this country (I don't want to drag the bible belt into this). Yes, both views are held and both views are held by important men - but those men are almost invariably in direct opposition to each other and accusing both sets of the sins of the other lacks nuance, understanding, empathy, and a sense of strategy.
The issue I have here is that the Patriarchy if it exists at all certainly isn't a monolithic entity and different aspects of what can be lumped together under the heading of "The Patriarchy" (such as the "all women should be sexually available" group who want accessable and near-mandatory contraception, and the "women should be chaste and in the kitchen" group who want contraception banned) are so fundamentally at odds with each other that referring to them under one label is either (from the weak to the powerful) simply going to irritate both groups and get you marginalised as they find something in common or (from the powerful to the weak) an act of scapegoating used to rally the base to blame their problems on one specific group.
I have a lot of experience with different parts of the US, and no experience with the UK. Here, an awful lot of women do not have good access to contraception. They may have legal access to contraception, but they can't afford it, as a practical matter. Or the contraception they can afford is not very reliable.
There are a lot of women in intimate relationships where a woman is emotionally or financially dependent on a man. Even if the man is not actively abusive (and that's a big if), a woman in such a relationship can suggest condom use, but she can't insist on it against the man's resistance. (If he is actively abusive, and has expressed hostility towards condoms or contraception, she may be afraid to even suggest it.) A friend of mine used to work in a Planned Parenthood in a rural area. She said that a lot of women came to Planned Parenthood because they wanted birth control pills, in order to protect themselves from pregnancy without the knowledge of their sex partners. These weren't prostitutes trying to act without the knowledge of their customers...they were women in their 30s and 40s trying to act without the knowledge of their husbands.
What makes those women afraid to push their husbands to wear condoms? (In some cases, it made them afraid to even talk about it.) There are also teenaged girls afraid to ask their boyfriends to wear condoms, because they feared talking about the subject would get a girl condemned as a "slut." And teenaged girls afraid to ask their boyfriends to wait for sex, because being sexually attractive is the main way they know how to assess their value. None of those things involves legal enforcement by a monolithic Patriarchy. But I don't think it's unreasonable to say they're all connected, and the thing that connects them is a set of pervasive patriarchal values and attitudes, shared by a great many people.
Healthcare free at the point of delivery is a wonderful system. We've had free contraception, paid for by the NHS, since the 1970s partly on the grounds that it's cheaper than using maternity wards or abortions.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to say they're all connected, and the thing that connects them is a set of pervasive patriarchal values and attitudes, shared by a great many people.
However, once you are talking about the patriarchy rather than simply the connections that exist in various places, you have no more coherence or clarity of thought than hippies talking about The Man or anarchists talking about The System or [insert political group and pet hate here].
As I said, I don't disagree with most of the essay - it's just when she starts by boiling things down into the monolithic entity she calls the patriarchy and proceeds from there (and when she equates the UK with the US and the whole of the US with itself when there are definite regions in the US and most regions in the UK where abortions are the result of screw-ups rather than lack of access to better methods) that the problems arise. And to start the essay with such a statement makes the whole thing problematic.
i agree that many abortions are caused by unequal power, without a doubt. and because of that unequal power i think it's really important that women have abortions if they don't want to have a child. i definitely don't think that most abortions now a days are done in a way that is soothing for women, or that being able to have an abortion makes everything great. there are huge injustices, but i don't think having an abortion covers up those injustices, rather it makes someone's life a little less unjust. if you don't want to have a baby, you shouldn't have one. how would having one make things more just? i don't get it.
i think being more open about abortion is important. when women are suffering emotional problems because social cues tell them that it's not ok to have abortions although legally they are allowed to have them then there's a problem. we need to make having an abortion a more acceptable concept, make access easy, but make it so that access is less necessary. it would be great to work towards a world where women don't need to have as many abortions because women are making choices originally that are best for them in regards to sex, (i.e. contraception if a woman chooses that sex with a man is best for her).
How do you feel about those ideas?
I should warn you that this was written as a rant at a post in another community before I discovered that I didn't have posting rights in that community. I think a lot of my arguement is based upon the premise that I think that abortion is unethical. I found an essay that articulated my ethical problems with abortion better than I could here.
I became prolife because my biology class taught a section about the development of the human embryo and fetus. I saw a human life as beginning at conception and stretching in one continuum until the death of that being. I saw that the inclusion of a child into society after birth (but not before) was nothing but a human convention.
Possibly, the root of my reaction against abortion is one of self-interest and of self-identification. Aren't there many in this world who see me as less than human because I am a woman? Aren't there people who would deem me to be politically, socially, or ideologically "degenerate" and "undesirable" because of my atheism, bisexuality, desire not to be a mother, pacifism, or other personal characteristics? How can I demand my inclusion in humanity and yet deny humanity to another? What kind of gamble would I be taking if I allowed a dehumanizing custom to persist in my society without questioning it? If I tolerate the redefinition of what is human according to someone's desire for power and control, don't I make myself vulnerable to someone's determination that I am not worthy of the designation "human"?
I don't agree entirely with the author, mainly because I adhere to Judaism rather than being a secualar atheism and Judaism makes a clear differentiation about the status of a human based upon whether it has been born. Due to this I might consider euthanising a fetus in circumstances when I would not euthanise a baby.
Of course, life is very complicated and I think there are circumstances when killing a fetus is justifiable just as I think there are circumstance when killing a born human is justified. (I am not a pacifist.) Every woman's situation is different and she is in a far better position to decide whether abortion is the least bad course of action open to her. The issues listed in my original post will frequently influence whether a woman feels that continuing a pregnancy to term is untenable.
My idea about abortion covering up injustice is that abortion is a very hidden, private course of action compared to what would happen if the pregnant woman did not have an abortion. This makes it easier for politicians and the general public to ignore the underlying injustices that lead to some abortions. Imagine what would happen if every female college student who became pregnant during for degree carried the pregnancy to term. Would it be as easy for people to ignore the problem of lack of childcare for university students if it resulted in visable large numbers of female college drop outs? Would more questions be asked about why college students were having unsafe sex? I'm not suggesting that women should sacrifice their educations to try and bring attention to these issues; it's a thought experiment to try to show what I mean by abortion 'covering up' injustice.
I have zero problems with abortions other than the fact that they are not positive for women. I think the emotional problems involved are primarily political/social although if a woman makes a connection to the fetus inside her then there is also emotional damage. I think it's nearly impossible to weigh what is personal emotional damage and socially caused emotional damage in today's society because abortion is so looked down upon/hidden. So, when I am talking about abortions not being positive for women I mean the socially caused emotional damage, (which I believe is caused primarily by having to keep something secret because of the way others will react), but physically abortion is uncomfortable. It causes something similar to a period that lasts for 4-6 weeks and includes horrible clotting/cramps. It's just a completely unpleasant position to have to be in.
The argument that you present is a very common one from first wave U.S. feminism. I think it doesn't really account for economic/social constraints and is overly idealistic. I also think it perpetuates the idea that women are innately motherly/compassionate/caring creatures. I don't understand how a life starts at conception-I don't see how something is life before it can 'live' on its own. It seems like a woman is placing her life over the life inside of her when she decides to have an abortion, however, the life that is inside of her relies completely on her for that life. It makes sense to me that a woman should feel empowered to make that decision about what goes on inside of her body, particularly because what's inside of her body couldn't exist outside of her body.
Additionally, I don't particularly feel for the lives of humans. I think that holding anti-abortion views is in general specieism, which is something I try not to support.
So, those are my views mostly inresponse to yours.
I'm really enjoying this conversation. I don't get comments emailed to me so I'll just come back and check to see if you've responded in a few days.
<3
Could you explain this statement more? I think it is important that we keep an eye on what the ideal would be as do what we can to improve what is. If we don't we can lose our sense of direction. I also don't see why expecting institutions to change is fully accomodate women, including the fact that they sometimes get pregnant, doesn't account for economic/social constraints. These institutions need to change. Women's liberation will only have achieved a fraction of it's aim if that does not happen. It's one thing to admit that it won't happen over night but it is quite another to not bother to change them because of social/economic constraints.
For one thing, the idea that sexism is profitable for employers is a red herring. The reason firms are increasingly taking 'diversity' into account in recruitment is because they don't want to miss out on the chance to employ the more than 50% of the best of their potential employees. Frequently the cost of maternity leave, child care and flexible working for people who are carers, pays for itself in terms of increased employee loyalty, productivity and the recruitment of effective individuals who would be unwilling to work for a firm that did not offer these things.
On a 'macro' level, the UK is a country with a decreasing birth rate and aging population. The cost of providing financial support to parents so that carrying a pregnancy to term does not result in great financial hardship will more than pay for itself in terms of their children contributing to shrinking work force in 20 years time.
Believe me, giving women the support they deserve will not bankrupt the country.
I also think it perpetuates the idea that women are innately motherly/compassionate/caring creatures.
I have several female, pro-life, childfree friends. The position is not that women all secretly long to be mothers, but rather that women should be willing to put another human's need to use their body to survive above their wish to not continue a pregnancy. Similarly, I don't think that people should be willing to donate bone marrow because they secretly enjoy medical procedures, but rather because they are willing to put up with those procedures to save someone's life.
I don't understand how a life starts at conception-I don't see how something is life before it can 'live' on its own.
Tape worms are alive. Conjoined twins are alive. People on life support machines are alive. People who are differently abled to the extent that they need people to feed them are alive. I don't understand how people can think that 'life' starts at birth when birth doesn't significantly change the organism being born.
Additionally, I don't particularly feel for the lives of humans. I think that holding anti-abortion views is in general specieism, which is something I try not to support.
I'm specieist. I'm vegan and I try to avoid harming animals but I'm always going to put the life of another human above the life of an animal. I don't think that anti-abortion views are any more specieist than any other views that aim to improve the position of a type of human. One may as well say that feminism or disability rights activism is specieist because it does not inherently aim to improve the position of animals.
Systems don't change over night. It's idealistic to think that if abortion were illegal systems would change. It's been proven over and over in the United States that when women's birth control and abortion rights start getting taken away women and family social supports also start losing funding. Perhaps it's different in the UK but to think that one change will produce another change is idealistic. Plus, the people who would be hurt in the interum are well worth thinking/caring about. Abortions happen whether they're legal or not. Your moral opinions/ideals about them have very little to do with them being a necessary procedure for many women who do have monetary constraints, or who just don't want to have babies. I think that if there were better family/women's social services then there would be less abortions, but I don't see how illegalizing abortion would help that cause in the least. You're making a false dichotomy.
The position is not that women all secretly long to be mothers, but rather that women should be willing to put another human's need to use their body to survive above their wish to not continue a pregnancy.
How is that your decision? You're putting value on a fetus's 'life' over a woman's life. The woman has the ability to make decisions for herself. The fetus doesn't. Not all women value a fetus over themselves. I don't understand why you think every woman should, or why you think it's your right to decide that.
Tape worms are alive. Conjoined twins are alive. People on life support machines are alive. People who are differently abled to the extent that they need people to feed them are alive.
Yes, all of those things are true. It's also true that people remove tape worms from themselves and kill them when they find out they are there. That often times a conjoined twin dies while another lives. That people on life support have someone deciding whether they are alive or not, and that decision can change whenever the person who has to make the decision makes it. IT's not the person on life support's decision. People who are that disabled would not be alive if someone weren't chosing to keep them alive.
You've given a number of examples where people choose to, or choose not to, keep people/things alive. I don't see how that helps your point. You also only named things that are born. The thing that comes closest to being a fetus in this set of examples is a tapeworm because it is inside of someone's body. When someone finds out that there is a tapeworm in them they remove it.
One may as well say that feminism or disability rights activism is specieist because it does not inherently aim to improve the position of animals
I wasn't saying that abortion should aim to improve the position of animals.