“I noticed that everybody who is pro-abortion has already been born…”
- Ronald Reagan
A friend, with whom I’ve had several heated arguments on this subject, posted this quote on his facebook. I have been making an attempt not to respond to such statements, although he is making them increasingly often. But this quote, in particular, makes it difficult not to respond.
First, there is the scare-tactic term, “pro-abortion.” I think Hillary Clinton put it well when she said, ”I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion.” Those of us who are pro-choice are advocating for just that — choice. We aren’t advocating using abortion as your primary form of birth control, or running campaigns to abort every fetus we can get our hands on. But in order for women to have any sort of agency in their lives, they must have the choice of when and whether to have children, and “Don’t have sex at all unless you want children” really is not a viable option — is not an option that provides agency at all. Every single pro-choice advocate I know is also an advocate of thorough sexual education — education that helps to prevent unwanted pregnancy. But when a pregnancy a woman cannot handle either emotionally, physically, or financially occurs (whether because other methods of birth control fail, she did not receive proper sexual education, or she found herself in a situation where the use of birth control was prevented by the other party), then her only options should not be pregnancy and child-rearing, or pregnancy and adoption (I’ll spare you the rant on our over-crowded adoption system). Either of those two options involves at the very least nine months of medical bills, some pretty intense body changes (which include decreased mobility and self-reliance), and, toward the end of the pregnancy, time out of a job that the woman may not be able to afford (I don’t think I even have to mention giving birth…but yes, painfully delivering a mini-human is also a negative). It seems to me that those who assume that women should go through with a pregnancy they can’t afford are generally on the privileged end of the spectrum — they have money, and they have support systems, and either can’t wrap their minds around the fact that some people have neither, or don’t care because they don’t think it’s their problem.
And then there’s the rest of the sentence. Can I tell you how utterly ridiculous it is? Because, honestly. Unless we are going to give fetuses voting rights that they don’t have the sentience or capacity to exercise, of course everyone who is pro-choice has already been born, and this should not be changed even if it could be. I can’t even begin to understand why someone thinks this is a viable argument.
In short: I am tired of so-called arguments that rely on nothing more than a self-important notion of morality.
Filed under: bigotry, feminism, politics | 2 Comments
Tags: abortion, pro-choice, pro-life
I’ve posted about this pretty much everywhere I do any sort of social networking.
I have, for some reason, been especially emotional today. I’m not sure whether it was better or worse that my strings happened to be so easily plucked on a day like today. When I read the ruling, I cried. Good tears, happy tears, but I’m not generally the type, and so it was both surprising to me and a bit exhausting.
Perhaps I’m just not used to feeling hope, and my body didn’t know how to handle it?
Filed under: bigotry, feminism, first amendment, politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: EPIC ASTOUNDING LOVELINESS, gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, perry v. schwarzenegger, Prop 8, unconstitutional
War on Christianity?
Lately, for some reason, one particular issue keeps surfacing in my life: the supposed war between the atheist and Christian populations. First it was this article from CBN (which resulted in a debate with a friend of mine), and now it’s this piece from Chrissy Satterfield.
I can’t help but notice that our very existence is considered an attack, and that when we have the gall to request that we be no longer treated like second-class citizens, we are accused of waging an outright war. No one seems to be able to see that there is a difference between asking for equal consideration and trying to eliminate Christianity. Restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to its original version does not require anyone to renounce their god and religion, it merely prevents people from being forced to profess belief they do not hold. Asking for holiday decorations to be inclusive does not force Christian decorations out of the mix, it merely takes into account the diverse beliefs of the American population. Enacting legislation that is not based on the principles of a certain religious sect does not force the members of that sect to act in opposition to their beliefs, it merely prevents others from being forced to act in opposition to their own. We are broadening horizons, not fighting for the dominance of one group over another.
The Chrissy Satterfield piece has had me seething all day. I’ve spoken before about the disconnect that appears to be inherent in Christianity, but there is certainly evidence for how it works socially here – Christian billboards are acceptable, while atheist billboards are purposeful acts of spite which infringe on the rights of the Christian population. The author openly gloats over the fact that the purpose of the billboards – which was to be a Fourth of July demonstration depicting the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance – was made ineffectual by the vandalism.
There is also a certain self-importance in her reaction. She claims:
This billboard campaign was a calculated insult to Christians, and the atheists thought it was appropriate. That shows you how spiteful this organization is. They took an American celebration and made it about them.
Right. We can clearly not be atheist and American at the same time – the two are mutually exclusive. Only a Christian expression of patriotism is appropriate, never mind that what was depicted was the original Pledge. As in, the most historically accurate means to honor the Pledge of Allegiance on Independence Day. It’s funny how it never crossed her mind that, just maybe, this was a way for the atheist population to show unity with one another, and really had nothing to do with attacking Christians. Yet another example of how simply not shutting up and accepting the status quo is seen as an assault, rather than a peaceful act of togetherness.
Oh, people know you exist all right. Any time you have a problem, the Left is ready to hear you out. But anytime a Christian has something to say it gets swept under the liberal rug and dismissed like our rights aren’t important.
Can I just address how utterly ridiculous this is? Because, honestly. We’ll even ignore the fact that the Right doesn’t hear out the atheist agenda, and expecting the Left to hear out the Christian agenda despite that fact is all kinds of privileged.
The majority of liberal politicians (of all politicians) profess Christianity as their faith, and the Christian agenda gets so much attention. In fact, it’s pretty damn hard to get anything that the author would deem the “atheist agenda” (whatever that may be) any positive attention. The Christian population has been in charge of things for quite some time, and to think that they are oppressed and downtrodden is just absurd. It is true that the human rights side is, thankfully, getting a little more consideration these days than in the past, but it is still not the dominant force.
Yet another passage to prove that she really, truly Does Not Get It:
Atheists are always saying how offended they are by, well…everything. How is this billboard not offensive to me? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Where’s my PC? And who’s protecting my right not to be offended?
I can tell you right now, I’m generally not “offended” by the treatment of all who are not Christian as lesser citizens. I am pissed the fuck off. I have spent my entire adult life respectfully biting my tongue and trying to reason with the Christian population, and I am dead tired of trying to be reasonable about the fact that they don’t seem to think I have a right to exist in their world.
I would like to extend my deepest thanks to the man or woman responsible for this vandalism. I appreciate the action you took. Thank you for reminding me that I’m not alone. It took a lot of guts to do what you did – and the fact that you haven’t stepped forward to take credit makes you a hero. It shows everyone that you are more devoted to the message than you are to the spotlight. I encourage you to keep your cover. Don’t give the secular world a reason to call your name; instead, let them call for our God.
Oh, where do I start?
How about this: vandalizing a billboard that expresses a view that opposes your own, and not owning up to it, is not an act of bravery. I’d say that not coming forward is the intelligent move, but it isn’t heroic, and it isn’t a sign of devotion to “the message.”
Then there’s that part thanking them for reminding her that she’s not alone. Exactly what reminder does she need? The majority of the population professes Christianity. Most of the messages we see and people we encounter as we go about our everyday lives are Christian. Perhaps she doesn’t notice because she assumes that it’s the default, The Way Things Rightly Are, whereas people who are outside that belief system realize it is The Way It Should Not Be.
I also need to extend a thank-you to some people in Sacramento and Detroit. In February, 10 atheist billboards were defaced in the Golden State and a slew of atheist bus ads were vandalized in Detroit. My dose of honesty this week: I am not happy that vandalism seems to be the only way to get an atheist’s attention. I’m happy that I can count on other Christians to stand up for themselves and for Christians everywhere. It gives me hope.
Really, Chrissy? Really? Even if the Christian population did not have our attention, vandalism is not the only way to get, and it is certainly not the best or most effective method. It is a good way to piss us off, though.
The fact that we are speaking out is a pretty big indicator that the Christians have our attention. That we are not bowing under is not a sign of ignorance – we have heard the other side, and we have rejected it. By responding to this incident with claims that you are the one being oppressed, you have revealed your true goal, which is to silence and dominate. And congratulations, you are quite good at pursuing that particular objective. But every time you attempt to silence rather than converse and coexist, I become less willing to hold my tongue and be polite when discussing my right to live in this world without being forced to pay lip service to a faith I have not held since I was 14. I truly hope that mutual respect comes before my patience runs out, but some part of me can’t help but wonder…if a request for common courtesy is seen as an attack, how would you handle it if we treated you as you treat us?
Filed under: bigotry, politics, religion | 5 Comments
Tags: atheism, cbn, chrissy satterfield, christianity, equality, vandalism, war
From the same woman who said what Roman Polanksi did wasn’t “rape rape,” we now have Mel Gibson isn’t racist!
Perhaps, in the interest of fairness, I should add that Whoopi said she wasn’t defending Mel, and didn’t agree with what he did. But that’s a small defense when you’re saying a man who has repeatedly and unapologetically used racial slurs as insults isn’t racist, and that he only made anti-Semitic and sexist remarks against the police officers involved in his 2006 DUI because he was drunk. That sounds a lot like defending his behavior to me.
Whoopi, we need to have a heart-to-heart. There comes a time when you have to accept that friends and people you respect can hold extremely fucked up views and do extremely fucked up things. Perhaps you cannot keep them as friends once you admit this to yourself. I know I couldn’t – not once we get into the Mel Gibson level of fucked-up-ness. But the denial has got to stop. Perhaps he hasn’t been overtly racist toward you. And really, that’s great. But my bet would be you’re the exception to the rule, and I imagine a large part of this is because you seem to have no problem with ignoring his racism and abusiveness. This works in a very similar way to rape apologism – which, incidentally, you’ve also engaged in! You make excuses for his behavior, don’t call him out on his racism, and downplay all incidents in which his bigotry rears its head. He has now pegged you as an ally. He now knows that, when it comes down to it, you will not turn against him when he continues being a racist asshole. So, Whoopi, here’s the deal. If your friend consistently spews racist bullshit (especially when he gives every indication that he means it), it’s pretty damn safe to say that he’s racist. Therefore, you need to accept that he’s racist, and decide how you want to approach the friendship from there. I would suggest approaching it in a way that doesn’t perpetuate bigotry and rape culture, but I really can’t make that decision for you. Most of all, you absolutely have to STOP BEING AN APOLOGIST. Perhaps you could say, “Mel seems to hold some very racist views, but I would like to continue the friendship and try to influence his views for the better.” I would find that response perfectly acceptable! “I know Mel, and I know he’s not a racist,” however, is not. It would be really, really nice if one day the “Whoopi on The View” headline was not followed by a summary of you spewing apologist crap.
Filed under: abuse, bigotry, feminism | Leave a Comment
Tags: apologist, mel gibson, racism, whoopi goldberg
So, Sarah Palin! More specifically, the idea that Sarah Palin seems to have that she is feminist!
It’s been a while since writing about these things has had a natural flow for me, which is why I haven’t been writing much. But then I starting commenting on Facebook about this, and I realized: Hey! This is what it feels like when you get pissed off and start writing passionately about something! Don’t you remember this surge of power and ideas and coherence when expressing said ideas?! Haven’t you missed that?
And so, here I am. To discuss Sarah Palin.
There are many days when I really wish Sarah Palin would just pop out of the American consciousness as quickly and easily as she popped in. Sure, she’s provided us with some good laughs, but is it really worth the trade-off?
This feminism debacle has torn me two ways — on one hand, I really wish she would disappear and take her attempt to redefine feminism with her; on the other, I can’t help but wonder how this might open new doors for actual feminists to discuss what that means with others.
Sarah Palin is certainly not feminist. You cannot be feminist and actively fight to strip women of their rights (for example, you can be personally pro-life, but not politically — you can make the decision for yourself, but to be feminist you must at the very least accept that every woman deserves the right to make that choice for herself). Sarah Palin is attempting to make feminism synonymous with misogyny — it is the same patriarchal you-don’t-know-what’s-best-for-you bullshit wrapped up in a pretty pro-women package. See, when it’s the women instead of the men telling you it’s for your own good, it’s feminism! And, as a bonus, if you’re just using feminism as a guise for forcing your misogyny on other women, you don’t have to worry about the pesky consequences of actual feminism! Wanting silly things like bodily autonomy, equal pay, government representation, healthy and comprehensive sexual education in schools, that just pisses people off. And, well, you know how the patriarchy is, it just can’t help itself! It will do everything in its power to make your existence difficult and problematic! You might even have to spend every single day fighting to live your life on your own terms! Theoretically simple aspects of daily life might turn into huge ordeals! So, you understand, it’s best just to accept your proper role, settle into having a nice, heteronormative family, and forget about trifles such as equality and respect. Trust me, after you are forced to carry three pregnancies to term and the pressures of rearing children you weren’t ready for (for one reason or another) and taking care of your husband kick in, you won’t even have time to worry about equality! See? Aren’t you grateful we “real” feminists dictated the terms by which you will live your life?
Okay, that turned into a major rant I did not intend. What I meant to say was: There are consequences to being feminist — most especially if you are open about being feminist. It isn’t really popular. I’ve been faced with a great deal of hostility when I reveal myself as feminist to people who knew me before I identified as such (and sometimes to people who did not know me before, but I’ve experienced the greatest hostility from people who were friends at some point). At times this hostility is open, but often it takes the form of snide jabs that are brushed off with a “just kidding” if I actually respond. Have you ever experienced someone rejecting and mocking something that is a huge part of your character, that greatly defines you as a person? Have you ever experienced them doing so and then acting as if the fact that you took offense to it was just so inconvenient, and really you shouldn’t take it so seriously when they are expounding on how worthless and unpleasant people like you are? If you have, you know it isn’t fun. In fact, it really, really sucks. (It’s worth it, for me, without question — even if I thought I was capable of eschewing feminism, I would not do so.) If you’re misogynist-under-the-guise-of-feminism, those consequences don’t really exist. You’re toeing the line. In short, you are firmly “in your place,” and there is no worry about you questioning the laws of the patriarchy. If you’d like to tell yourself and the people around you that said laws are actually for the good of all women everywhere, even better.
So when Sarah Palin calls herself feminist while not actually holding feminist views, I get pretty pissed off. (And you can say she’s been advocating for women in positions of power, but she’s mostly been advocating for privileged white women in positions of power — women who will continue to further misogynistic goals — and that just doesn’t cut it.) But I also wonder what opportunities might open up when people don’t automatically break out the crosses and garlic when the words, “I am feminist” pass someone’s lips. How many more chances will we have to complete that with, “And this is what that means?”
Don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t make Palin’s co-opting of the term for her own anti-women ends acceptable. But, since I do not think we will be able to stop that — she seems pretty determined to use it despite the objections of the people who actually are feminist — perhaps this will open up more chances for us to discuss feminism and what it really means.
Filed under: feminism, politics | Leave a Comment
Tags: feminism, Sarah Palin
I’ve talked before both about Twilight and its detrimental effects on the younger generation and about the use of rape as an analogy (in that case, as a political analogy). Now both have come together to form a bouillabaisse of fucked-upness.
What you don’t see are the cameras shoved in my face and the bizarre intrusive questions being asked, or the people falling over themselves, screaming and taunting to get a reaction. The photos are so… I feel like I’m looking at someone being raped. A lot of the time I can’t handle it. It’s fucked. I never expected that this would be my life.
(HuffPost edited “fucked.” I unedited, because little asterisks that are somehow supposed to make us realize that isn’t actually a curse word irritate the hell out of me.)
I don’t doubt that media attention can be very harsh and very intrusive. I am certain that lines are crossed that should not be. I am also certain that looking at paparazzi photos of yourself is not the same as looking at a person being raped.
A lot of times, I do use this as a Feminism 101 space. At the beginning, it was because I was working through Feminism 101 myself, but now it’s largely because I know how necessary Feminism 101 is to getting people to realize why certain things are important. But today, this is not a Feminism 101 space. If you don’t know why comparing media attention (even excessive media attention) to rape is fucked up, then the burden is on you to educate yourself.
What I would like to discuss is how these two parts play together – the influence of stars like Kristen Stewart on the younger generation, and how that relates to her recent comment in particular.
It’s no secret that the term “rape” is thrown around carelessly all the time. It’s become shorthand for far too much in a great deal of people’s vocabulary. And an obvious issue I have with Kristen Stewart’s use of the term in that manner is the fact that it will reinforce this behavior. And that’s bad enough. But when you also factor in the other behaviors Kristen Stewart enforces (through her role in the Twilight series), it becomes an issue of more than verbal injury.
Stewart’s role in Twilight is one fraught with subservience and abuse. Bella Swan has an abusive boyfriend (later an abusive husband) who controls her actions, limits her freedoms, ignores her wishes, and tells her it’s because he loves and is trying to protect her – something which Bella also says many times. She is completely dependent on this boyfriend, to the point of slipping into a state of catatonic non-functioning without him. Let’s just cut it short and say it’s not a healthy relationship. It’s not the relationship model we should be promoting to pre-teens and teenagers (or anyone else, really, but that’s the major fanbase, and also incidentally the age group that is most involved in figuring out dating and relationships for the first time). On top of this let’s throw the main star’s nonchalant use of the word “rape.” Now let’s think about what kind of influence this has on kids.
- The female will think that her role is to be subservient to her romantic interests – possibly to all males in her acquaintance. She will not trust her own judgment, and believe that these male figures know what’s best for her better than she does.
- The male will think that, in order to attract the opposite sex, he must be domineering and abusive. He must ignore what she says, and do what he wants anyway.
- Neither will think of rape or sexual assault as serious issues. Neither will have a clear hold on appropriate boundaries and how to enforce them/respect them.
I’m worried for these kids – worried about the ways their views and relationships will develop, worried about what this will do even to the kids who escape that influence. It’s difficult enough to break free from the influence of the patriarchy without something as huge and pervasive as Twilight encouraging it.
Filed under: abuse, feminism | Leave a Comment
Tags: Kristen Stewart, rape, twilight
There have been several things going on recently that I would normally have already addressed — Oklahoma, Arizona, Oklahoma again, Arizona again, Belgium, Harvard, Florida — but 1. I’ve been addressing it in ridiculous amounts in my personal relationships and it is wearing me out, and 2. There’s just SO MUCH FUCKED UP SHIT GOING ON that if I wrote about all of it on here my brain would explode, at the very least. SO. Right now, I’m considering sharing the link to this (and the fact that I am the author of it, of course) with some people I would like to discuss this shit with, but in a more organized manner (my main political outlet this past week has been Facebook, because that’s where I and my acquaintances tend to post links to news articles, and I have run into so much craziness you would not believe, and as I said it is wearing me the fuck out). As such, there are going to be some edits to past posts, just to give you a heads up (I’m going to go ahead and start on the changes while I’m deciding whether or not to share this space). There are things that I was comfortable saying anonymously that I am not so much comfortable with sharing when I’m going, “Hey, you know me, and all the other people involved in this situation!” So yeah.
Filed under: personal | Leave a Comment
The Role of God as Abuser
I was considering some of the ways that believers tend to minimize the less-than-savory traits exhibited by the God of the Bible, and was suddenly struck by the parallel between the way that God interacts with his Christian followers and the way abusers interact with their victims.
1. “I’m only doing this because I love you.”
Often, an abuser has convinced his/her victim that abusive actions are done out of love. Actions like keeping a victim from seeing friends (they’re bad influences; I want you to spend more time with me), keeping them from pursuing goals (I just don’t want you to get set up for a fall), even physical abuse (I’m just trying to teach you a lesson), are written off as acts of love. The victims generally believe in this, too – it’s one of the many ways abusers exercise power over their victims.
This is very similar to the way Christians interact with their God. They are told to stay away from “Satan’s” influence, to go out in the world to convert, but stay insulated from the secular aspects (in other words, “Stay away from them, they are bad influences”). They are told that all their merits are not their own, but given to them from God. They cannot take any pride in the positive aspects of their personality or actions, but must give all glory to God. (This has the same outcome as, “I don’t want you to get set up for a fall” – it takes away all potential for personal achievement.) On the other hand, all their bad traits are innate in them. And any commands that are not actually in the best interest of the people are still considered loving – take, for example, the command to people who are not heterosexual to go against their natural sexual preference. This is spun as an act of love – God just wants you to experience the “proper,” “complimentary” male-female pairing – but it is actually incredibly difficult for and harmful to people (and, of course, heterosexual relationships are no more guaranteed to be complimentary and successful than any other). God himself will say, “I ask for your unquestioning obedience, and will send you to hell if you do not provide it…because I love you.” “I require you to follow my laws, and will send my wrath down upon you if you do not…because I love you.”
2. “I’m the only one who could ever love/put up with you.”
Victims often stay with their abusers because they do not believe anyone else is capable of caring about them – or even dealing with them. In Christianity, this takes the form of telling people that no one will ever love them as much as God, and no relationship will ever be as fulfilling as their relationship with God (and is compounded by the previously mentioned belief that all bad traits are innate, but none of the good). As abuse victims repeat their unlovability to themselves as a reason to stay in a harmful situation, Christians repeat it to themselves as a reason to worship God. He loves them, therefore he deserves their love. Of course this isn’t the way it works – not everyone who loves you, or claims to love you, actually deserves your love.
3. “You don’t know what’s good for you.”
I want to go back to the obedience I mentioned before. The ways that God gains this obedience are similar to the ways abusers gain obedience from their victims. There is the assurance that they, not you, know what’s best for you…you’re too stupid, too flawed, too naïve (too sinful). There is also the threat of outside harm if you do not obey (“It’s for your own good…those people don’t love you, those people will hurt you. You just don’t understand the way the world works.”) And, of course, actual violence from the abuser in the face of disobedience – the God of the Old Testament did this very obviously, through wrath and destruction; the God of the New Testament does this through the condemnation to hell.
4. “If you loved me, you’d…”
The other side of the “I’m doing this because I love you” coin, also a tactic used to gain obedience. The victim, remember, has usually been convinced that because they are unlovable, the fact that the abuser loves them makes the abuser deserving of their love in return. Now they are required to prove this love. I think the use of this in Christianity is pretty obvious – it is most often shown through saying that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the people, and in repayment we should love him. Because we love him, we should obey his laws. In truth, demanding a return for love does not work (if you’ve ever dealt with this in a personal relationship, you know this to be true…at best, it generates resentment).
5. “It’s your fault I act this way.”
I think this one’s pretty obvious… “If you didn’t make me so mad, I wouldn’t have to hit you.” “If you weren’t such a slut, I wouldn’t have to yell at you.” “If you weren’t so stupid, I wouldn’t have to embarrass you in public.”
One first things that came to mind for me is the story of Adam and Eve… It is Eve’s fault that they are kicked out of paradise, and Eve brought the pain henceforth associated with childbirth upon herself. If only she hadn’t eaten the fruit, he would not have to do this to her. (By the way, that situation is even more disturbing if you continue to consider it…if you believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing and Eve’s creator, then that act of disobedience was just Eve acting the way she was created to.) It’s a pretty prevalent theme, though…villages destroyed for disobedience (even once, according to the Bible, nearly all of humanity). We can’t forget Lot’s wife, in one such instance…her crime was merely looking back when told not to. And, of course, “If you would just love and worship me without any proof of my existence, I wouldn’t have to send you to hell.” (The threat of hell can be used quite diversely for control and abuse, in part because it is less overt than the acts of control and violence of the Old Testament God. This makes me think of an abuser who has gotten so good at abuse that his victims and those close to them are in constant doubt as to whether any abuse is actually occurring. It is, of course, which is why that situation is so horrible and terrifying…a victim whose abuser is obvious about his/her abuse will likely have friends who will be a support group, who will help the victim to break free from the control of the abuser. A victim whose abuser takes a less obvious tactic is more likely to be surrounded by people who will tell the victim that he/she is overreacting, that their abuser would never do that.)
In light of this, I think I understand a little more why people believe so wholeheartedly in Christianity while ignoring many of the inconsistencies. Of course, it is extremely difficult to convince a victim that they are being abused, and that they don’t deserve abuse. Such realizations often must come from within. Others can help it along, and assist victims in getting out of an abusive situation, but much of the realization of wrongdoing and determination to change must come from the individual. It is too easy for the abuser to say, “I don’t want you to spend time with them…they are bad influences, they are coming between us, they are just setting you up for a fall” (“Do not be of the world…the world’s influence is sinful, it will hinder your relationship with God, it may seem attractive now but later you will regret it”).
Filed under: abuse, religion | 2 Comments
Tags: abuse, abuser, bible, christianity, christians, god, religion, victims
Look How Far We’ve Come
“Surely it must be one of history’s deftest ironies that oppressors have always sought to rationalize their oppression by blaming the oppressed for the state to which it has reduced them.” - Sidney Mintz
I am currently reading a very good book entitled “A History of Women in America.” It is full of things that I never learned in history class — specifically pertaining to the role of women in historic events, of course. It has been a bit eerie reading, though, as I’m discovering that the methods used to oppress women have not changed much over the years. They are, perhaps, used more subtly now — but not by much.
There are numerous ways that this manifests throughout the book. The first I’d like to discuss was in reference to the treatment of female slaves.
Southern white men abused black women and then proclaimed that black women were wanton, immoral, and sexually degraded.
This idea — that women who have been abused are somehow immoral or damaged, and that is why they were abused — still permeates our culture, although now it is not limited by race. If you have ever heard (which I know you have) “She deserved it because…,” you have witnessed this in action. (She deserved it because she went to the party. She deserved it because she was drinking. She deserved it because she dressed like a “slut.” She deserved it because she acted interested in him. She deserved it because she kissed him. She deserved it because she slept around anyway.) Women who are “pure” (virgins, not remotely interested in sex, do not dress provocatively, waiting till marriage, etc, etc) do not deserve assault. Women who are “wanton” (not virgins, enjoy sex, enjoy their sexuality, enjoy provocative dress, etc, etc) were just asking for it. The blame does not lie on the man for assaulting, it lies on the woman for “asking for” assault.
Then there is the reasoning that women just don’t like sex (which helps to fuel the idea that women who do like sex are fucked up).
Dr Alcott wrote, “Woman, as is well known, in a natural state…seldom if ever makes any of those advances, which clearly indicate sexual desire and for this very plain reason, that she does not feel them.”
The way this works is so insidious…women are considered immoral if they enjoy and seek out sexual activity. Therefore they do not make sexual advances, lest they be shunned from society. Because women do not make sexual advances, they must not enjoy sex. We are still constantly fighting this battle. There is a stereotype that is incredibly prevalent (and that women are taught that it is right to embrace) that women are seeking love, while men are seeking sex. This where that oh-so-lovely phrase, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” originates. This stems from the idea that the only use women have for sex is to trap men into marriages. Of course, that’s preposterous — women enjoy sex just as much as men, but the fact that they are taught that they are not supposed to breeds all these harmful ideas about the way relationships work.
Twenty years before the first women’s rights convention women workers were protesting in public. ”It required some courage,” wrote one observer, “for Yankee ‘young ladies’ to brave public opinion and develop strike tactics at this early period…It was felt that young women should not march about the streets, making a spectacle of themselves…whether it was conventional or not.”
I’ve discussed it before, and imagine I will again, but women are still expected not to “make a spectacle of themselves.” Women are expected to be meek, silent, subservient. Any display to the contrary often brings scorn upon them.
If feminists rashly insisted on the vote for themselves, abolitionists stated, they would only jeopardize the hard-won chance of black men.
Oh dear, where do I start? Perhaps with the fact that a large number of the people who fought for the freedom of said black men were, in fact, women? And that they were still expected to be self-sacrificing and put their needs second? Yeah. (Of course not meaning that black men did not deserve freedom and the vote, which I imagine goes without saying, but will say anyway.) Of course, this still persists today…a woman is told that in order to be “good,” she must be self-sacrificing. She must put the needs of her family before her own. She must put the needs of her colleagues before her own. She must put the needs of her romantic partner before her own. She must put the needs of her friends before her own.
That is all I am going to quote for now, but I would also like to discuss a bit the idea that women and men have their own “spheres” that are “complimentary” (as in, women are meant to do housework, care for children, and be the more moral “fairer sex,” while men are expected to go out, labor, be ruthless in business, and rely on women to enforce their morality — which, by the way, has a great influence on the way sexual assault is viewed). There is a reasoning used here much like the one used to enforce the idea that women don’t like sex — women have traditionally done the housework and cared for children, so it must be what they all want. This is, of course, ridiculous. Colonial women did a great deal of “man’s work” while the colonies were being founded — their labor was needed, so they were allowed to step outside their “sphere.” Once the colonies were on their feet, men pushed women out of these roles by requiring official training and apprenticeships, and barring women from participating in these things. This is not meant to be an “all men are evil!” diatribe, but to illustrate the fact that women have historically wanted to leave their “sphere,” but were not allowed to do so. The idea that women have always done this, so this must be what they naturally want and are capable of is ridiculous. This has gotten better in modern times, of course, but the idea of spheres has carried over, and women are still expected to want marriage, children, and domestic life. Women have just as many complicate needs, desires, and goals as men. Some do want domesticity — as do some men. And some do not. I find it startling and frightening that ideas like this are taken as “the way it is” now, when the “spheres” were forcefully established, not due to natural inclination.
That is enough ranting for now…coming soon, Things Women Did That You Probably Did Not Hear About In History Class! (Title to hopefully be shortened later.)
(All quotes are, of course, from A History of Women in America by Carol Hymowitz and Michaele Weissman. Buy it. Read it. It’s good stuff.)
Filed under: feminism | Leave a Comment
Tags: america, feminism, gender roles, history, tradition, women
