A whole other conversation

52 thoughts on A whole other conversation

1. Of course. Of course Lisa is correct, and you are correct in your echo. Sadly, I don’t know if this holistic approach is tenable. On the whole, I have serious doubts that our society is ready to stop reducing any topic to it’s most basic black-and-white terms. If anything, the assassination of Dr. Tiller (and attendant shrieks of joys from an anti-choice side) show that people are still far too narrow in their thinking to take a holistic approach in viewing women’s lives. And though it’s shameful to diminish your stance on this issue as simply pro- or anti-, I’m afraid that until significant progress is made in finding common ground, we have to continue to compartmentalize women’s issues and focus on each separately.
   It’s a damn shame.

2. Fantastic! I don’t have anything to say, except that I’m with you.

3. That was a tremendous post, and I’m commenting now to bump this up. Lisa described, in a nutshell, what the problem is—these are separate conversations in mainstream feminism, and that’s a big reason why so many women feel alienated from it.

   I agree with Daisy in the last thread—that we need to point out the hypocrisy of the term “pro-life” at every opportunity, and not cede that to the other side. There’s a reason they picked that word, “life”. The word “choice” connotes flippancy—“do you want fries with that?” Why isn’t our movement centered around the term “justice”, instead?

4. I agree to that, but was wary of this:

   I believe the access to healthcare, education, and information trumps the rallies and cries for choice. True freedom is full access to the knowledge of health, consequence, givings and sacrifice of our actions. Why are we so damn staunch in our fight for abortion and so up in arms when a physician is murdered? Albeit, it’s a tragedy, but LOOK AT WHAT WOMEN IN THIS WORLD ARE ENDURING.

   To me that implies that the outcome of healthcare, education and information should not be abortion–that our staunch fight for abortion is misguided. To what does “consequences” refer? What should the consequences and givings of our actions be?

5. I guess I don’t get it. Maybe someone can help me out here. Am I misunderstanding? It sounds to me like she is saying we should stop arguing over whether women should be allowed to have abortions or not, and instead talk about how life should suck less for women, in general.

   I mean, yes, life should suck less for women, in general. But I don’t see how not talking about specifics (like access to abortion if necessary) helps that at all.

   Am I missing something here, or what?

6. There is no common ground. On that point she is correct. But on every other: no. She seems very impressed with her rhetoric, which amounts to her being pro-choice without having the guts to say so. The two paragraphs Medea cites demonstrate a sleight of hand we should all recognize by now, so no. No.

7. The word “choice” connotes flippancy—”do you want fries with that?” Why isn’t our movement centered around the term “justice”, instead?

   Only because we’ve been conditioned to think of women as deserving nothing, not even the choice about whether or not we become mothers. Only because we live in a culture so deeply misogynistic that audiences cannot be relied upon to make a distinction between fast food and surgery. Do you think “justice” is going to be an easier sell, that you’ll have an easier job of linking it to your private murders and frivolous little pills? Justice for whom? Justice for people who aren’t taken seriously when they demand their basic freedoms?

   I don’t think I have any reason to cede choice, either–and I’m a little bothered that reproductive justice is becoming so bent towards avoiding reproductive tragedy. Yes, absolutely: it’s a life or death or strong quality of life option for most women. Yes, definitely: “pro-life” policies kill women. But abortion needs protection even when the woman accessing it seems flippant to the more eschatalogically minded.

8. Medea, human, and tata: my own impression on this issue (note, I am not speaking for Lisa) is that abortion rights are often focused on to the exclusion of the overall context of women’s health. Is the abortion debate important? Of course. It’s vital. But the fact that it so often drowns out voices calling for basic health care and human rights for women around the world is devastating. Abortion should merely be one piece of the puzzle, but instead it is often thrust to the foreground.

   I know I’ve been guilty of this myself. It is so easy to look at my own world with the many privileges I have and think to myself, “Choice is what matters.” Sometimes I forget that for many, many women, that choice is dependent upon the reality of struggling to feed existing children, upon access to and money for pre-natal and post-natal care, etc. If I speak to such a woman, how awful is it if the only thing I have to say to her is, “How fortunate that you had the choice to abort.”

9. If I speak to such a woman, how awful is it if the only thing I have to say to her is, “How fortunate that you had the choice to abort.”

   What. On Earth. Are you talking about?

   This is nonsense. Classist, ignorant nonsense.

10. tata, mind explaining your point further? I’d be happy to discuss it and reconsider my point of view, but I give me a little more to work with.

11. Why are we so damn staunch in our fight for abortion and so up in arms when a physician is murdered? Albeit, it’s a tragedy, but LOOK AT WHAT WOMEN IN THIS WORLD ARE ENDURING.

    I too am hesitant to accept this. One of very few physicians who helped some desperate women to NOT endure some terrible things was murdered. To me that seems to be kind of important. I am enraged that he was murdered but I am more sad that many women will be hurt because of it – where will they go now?

12. Nicole, would you really say those words to another person?

    What do you think would be that person’s feelings in response?

13. I don’t know, folks. I have heard lots of people before say they thought feminist conversations shouldn’t “only” be about abortion/choice. But in my experience what they actually meant was they didn’t want to engage with the issue of reproductive choice — either because they were not themselves strongly pro-choice and didn’t see the importance of it, or because they didn’t want to make too many waves. I had some activist work I was doing derailed by such people, in fact.

    So, my position is: DUH, a “holistic view of women’s lives” is extremely important. But I’m not buying what Lisa is selling about how we need to shut up about abortion. That holistic view is worthless if it does not contain specifics. And making sure women have a choice of whether and when to bear children is hands down the most important way to improve their economic situation, no matter who they are or where they live. A holistic view will show you that, easily.

    In other words, this accusation that we focus on abortion to the exclusion of everything else — it’s a very nasty and dangerous strawman.

14. tata, I think that last part of my comment was poorly put and probably unnecessary. Would I ever say that to another woman? Certainly not, though I do know people who I think would do so, in a misguided attempt at comfort or just out of ignorance. Horrible, but true. Condescending and paternalistic, though that’s sort of my point.

    Either way, it wasn’t a useful example. My overall point is that I often feel like that’s where the abortion debate cuts off the discussion of women’s health and reproduction, when there’s so much more going on.

15. I agree that the conversation should be a holistic one, and that reproductive justice is not just about abortion.

    However. human and tata have a reasonable point. Here in the real world, decisions aren’t made in a holistic way. Laws, by their nature, are forced to boil down complicated matters into simple rules, so that there are guidelines for people to understand and follow. So the issue of choice: pro or anti, is a necessary focus.

    As human says: “that we focus on abortion to the exclusion of everything else — it’s a very nasty and dangerous strawman.” The abortion question is far from resolved. A fighter for the cause was just killed.

    Lisa makes an excellent point about “all the basic things that women don’t have that lead to make her choose between ‘life’ and ‘choice.’ It’s not that simple.”

    But Lisa’s friend Katie has a point too: “Well, yeah. I mean, women don’t have access to the education and resources they need in general, but that’s a whole other conversation.”

    In the sense of how we experience our lives, it’s not a whole other conversation. In terms of shaping policy, one cannot look at things in a vacuum. We should work towards all women having the education and resources to make choices unshaped by privilege barriers.

    But we can all agree that’s a process. Along the way, the issue of choice rears its head, and must be resolved in isolated fashion. This should ideally happen *simultaneously* with policy initiatives to aid in reducing barriers to education and health care. But it cannot be eloquently wrapped up into a “holistic” package, because today in the here and now women need to right to make the choices that are right for their real lives.

16. The thing is, this isn’t just about abortion. Anti-choicers want to restrict access to birth control and EC–and have invoked refusal (so-called conscience) clauses to do so–and they have the full support of the law in many cases. Been raped? SOL! Don’t kill your baby! And it’s not as if they’re doing much to help poor women in other countries–look at the efforts to keep funding from clinics overseas that dispensed contraception (say goodbye to healthcare!). Look at the resistance to distributing fucking condoms–HIV transmission prevention? Oh, why we should stick with abstinence!

    The reproductive rights movement has not ignored this, and it’s disingenuous to assume we have. And yes, a holistic approach would be nice, but it’s little comfort to have someone pat me on the fucking head and tell me that I can have lots of support when I’m pregnant, don’t want to be, and cannot have an abortion because they are either illegal, too expensive, too difficult to get because doctors have been scared off (and medical students aren’t taught the procedures) or risky thanks to harassment and terrorism.

    And I’ll point out–again–that these procedures that people decry are often used for women who are carrying stillborn fetuses, women who have miscarried, women who are facing horrible complications. You want to wring your hands and trivialize the real shit these women go through? Don’t be surprised then, when you hear of more women traumatized, more women going septic because heaven for-fucking-bid anyone do a D&X after a miscarriage.

    This isn’t me wanting fries with that, fuck you very much. It’s me wanting full autonomy over my own fucking body, medical treatment without interference from the peanut gallery, the knowlege that I can get the right treatment because doctors aren’t afraid to perform the procedure and medical students are actually taught it.

17. So, my position is: DUH, a “holistic view of women’s lives” is extremely important. But I’m not buying what Lisa is selling about how we need to shut up about abortion. That holistic view is worthless if it does not contain specifics. And making sure women have a choice of whether and when to bear children is hands down the most important way to improve their economic situation, no matter who they are or where they live. A holistic view will show you that, easily.

    But then again, “choice” applies to problems beyond safe and legal access to abortion. It can also apply to safe and legal access to emergency perinatal care, for example. This is something that many pregnant women have no guarantee or hope of, and it complicates their decision to bear a child. It applies to a host of other factors that make maternity and its alternatives feasible or impossible. If a woman has no way to seek employment outside the home, what do her choices look like? And I support the human-rights-based approach to reproductive healthcare, family planning, and maternity.

    But…well, I want those other women to have their roses too, I guess. I want them to have as much autonomy and as much support as I take for granted. The discussion does change when the pressing need is about preventing fistulas, but I don’t want the effect of selfish policy to be cast solely in terms of desperation and death.

    The frivolities that get dismissed over on the anti-choice side include stuff like the right to a diploma that doubles your salary, or the right to make sure that your other children grow up in a stable and happy home, or the right to birth control that works for your body. These choices should be protected for everyone, and defended on the same level as the right to abort or deliver in basic safety and health.

    But we can all agree that’s a process. Along the way, the issue of choice rears its head, and must be resolved in isolated fashion. This should ideally happen *simultaneously* with policy initiatives to aid in reducing barriers to education and health care. But it cannot be eloquently wrapped up into a “holistic” package, because today in the here and now women need to right to make the choices that are right for their real lives.

    I worry–and I see no reason why I should choose between the former issue and this one–that the “holistic” approach will become a way to make abortion seem unnecessary. Obsolete. It makes the nonnegotiable fact of pregnancy and delivery–and the further fact of being a fucking parent!–immaterial. If women have sex ed, birth control, medical care, moral pressure to adopt out, and support for mommyhood, why would any woman not want to go ahead and have that kid? So the argument goes, anyway.

    These kinds of support are as important as safe and legal abortion, but…some of the moderates out there seem to see them as, er, game-changing. As though a woman might not have any other motive for not having that kid. I don’t want them to become an excuse to force women into childbearing.

    And I think that’s the other fear they evoke. Some women hear them and worry that abortion gets lost in the crowd. I think some women hear the very real anti-abortion undertone of some of their more compromise-minded advocates. I like Frank Schaeffer a lot more than his dad, but that wistful glint in his eye makes me a little nervous.

18. The thing is, this isn’t just about abortion. Anti-choicers want to restrict access to birth control and EC–and have invoked refusal (so-called conscience) clauses to do so–and they have the full support of the law in many cases. Been raped? SOL! Don’t kill your baby! And it’s not as if they’re doing much to help poor women in other countries–look at the efforts to keep funding from clinics overseas that dispensed contraception (say goodbye to healthcare!). Look at the resistance to distributing fucking condoms–HIV transmission prevention? Oh, why we should stick with abstinence!

    And yes, there’s this, too. I trust most politically-prominent anti-choicers–and the political party they’ve chosen to represent them–to protect women’s lives…about as much as I’d trust John Wayne Gacy to coach a Little League team.

19. @ Tata

    I thought I should add that I messed up the blockquote, and the second paragraph is mine.

20. Medea: point taken.

    Lisa’s post is a classic case of misdirection. It’s the exact technique anti-choicers have used against us since Roe, but not just on abortion. It’s We Can’t Talk About Your Issues Because [blank] Is More Important. It’s the moderate’s favorite way to placate people with real problems and grievances.

21. Only because we’ve been conditioned to think of women as deserving nothing, not even the choice about whether or not we become mothers.

    This is somewhat unrelated, but it reminded me of something that has long bothered me. In the feminist movement, choice isn’t just used to connotate “pro-choice.” You see a lot of people simply saying, “Feminism is about choice.”

    To me, that misses a lot of the point. Feminism is about equality, and choice falls under that umbrella because historically, women were not allowed to make choices, good or bad, because of their lower status. (We’ll ignore intersectionality for the moment, because it’s really just a matter of degree in this particular example.)

    Getting back to the point of the post, I read Lisa as saying that we can’t consider choice without considering everything else at the same time, which is true overall, but that’s a problem that is too big and too engrained in our misogynistic society to tackle all at once. So we have Dr. Tiller helping women according to his medical expertise, and grassroots activists helping women according to their expertise, and so on and so forth.

    I’m not a great writer, so my point might not be all that clear… I’m trying to say that it’s better to have people with a depth of knowledge in one particular area under the umbrella of equality and reproductive rights than it would be to try to tackle this GIANT problem all at once and be constantly overwhelmed by its size and magnitude. We have to chip away at it; we can’t just (holistically) blast it to hell all at once.

22. Madea, human, tata,

    Have you tried to engage with Lisa and talk about your concerns, disagreements, or things you “don’t get” about her post over at her blog? Lisa’s post talks about how the boundaries of “pro-choice” have solidified without input from a significant population of women outside the west/Global North, and how issues of access to healthcare are considered “a whole other conversation.” I appreciate that Jill provided the link, but the whole post and an entire conversation is already taking place there.

23. This isn’t me wanting fries with that, fuck you very much.

    I want to make something crystal-clear Sheelzebub. I am pro-choice. I am 100% in favor of Roe v. Wade.

    But I also want to be very clear that our opposition is cleaning our clocks, because they control our image. As a feminist and trade unionist, I believe the feminist movement, and most especially the reproductive rights movement, has at least as big an image problem as the labor movement. I don’t like the catchphrases “pro-life” and “pro-choice” because of how they frame the issue and the effect it has on the movement at large.

    The word “choice” in the English language carries a connotation of frivolity, or doesn’t-really-matter. And this shit does really matter. These are life-changing, life shattering decisions, the import of which can’t be underestimated. There’s not a goddam thing casual about the right to control your body and make your own medical decisions. That’s why I prefer the term reproductive justice, because whatever else the word “justice” is, it sure the fuck is not casual.

    Yes, we have an image problem. Even so, the vast majority of people in the U.S. are pro-Roe. What is giving aid and comfort to our enemies isn’t women like me, or Daisy, or Lisa, or anyone else who is looking for another way of reframing the issues of women’s lives in a way that is likely to get more feet on the ground and pick up the momentum that used to exist in the feminist movement back in the seventies as far as getting our rights enshrined in law and defending them—-it’s the existance of a silent majority that is silent not out of disagreement but of wondering if and where they fit in. Part of our problem is that we don’t control the media, and our enemies do. We have a limited amount of input on the type of press we receive. But, we don’t have to accept how they describe us.

    That “pat on the head” you describe is exactly what I and a lot of other women feel when it comes to our choice. Kinda like “oh, you have a kid? well, good luck with that! bye!” Lots of lip service to things like universal childcare, but I have yet to see a March on Washington for it. It’s as if once the choice—to have an abortion or not have an abortion—-is made, you’re on your own. You even said as much in your response—what does it mean to have a “right”, when you can’t exercise it? What does it mean to need the services of a doctor to perform a late-term abortion , but they don’t exist? What does it mean to want a first-trimester abortion, but not be able to afford it (or afford to take the time off from work to travel to another state), because the services aren’t available where you live? What does it mean to have the right to use birth control, but it’s perfectly legal for your health insurance to not cover it—let alone cover abortion? Let alone if you’re even lucky enough to have insurance? What does it mean to have a prescription for birth control but not be able to access it at the pharmacy? What does it mean to be able to choose to have a child, but not be able to access healthcare for her? What does it mean to have that child, and lose your job because you don’t have sick leave when you need it?

    Over in the comments on the My Ecdysis thread, the explanation was given that it’s just a cold, limited resources decision—-we can’t get pie-in-the-sky universal healthcare, but we can keep abortion legal. Why is that? Shit, I read Liberazione della Donne by Lucia Chiavola Birnbaum on the feminist movement in Italy, and how they not only gained the right to legal abortion but were able to effectively turn back a powerful, concerted effort to take away the legal right to abortion. How? By working with existing grassroots movements and meeting people where-they-are, which is what I got out of Lisa’s post. Italian feminists met with anti-war activists, various political parties on the left, trade and industrial unionists, parish groups (yep, they went into the trenches churches, especially liberation theology groups). Shit, they even went door-to-door, talking to Catholic women about the need for abortion. And they won. Ground zero, y’know. The whole might of the Vatican against them and grassroots feminists won. I think that’s a terrific model for the United States, and a damn sight better than relying on the nonprofit industrial complex.

    What I got out of Lisa’s post is that simplifying complex issues isn’t working for feminism in terms of building or even keeping the damn movement together. We fight and scrap for retaining what was gained over a generation ago and continue to lose by attrition. Acknowledging the complexity of our lives just might—might—rebuild feminism.

24. This is somewhat unrelated, but it reminded me of something that has long bothered me. In the feminist movement, choice isn’t just used to connotate “pro-choice.” You see a lot of people simply saying, “Feminism is about choice.”

    And it certainly comes up in other feminist contexts–choosing how to be a mother, for example; choosing a profession or an education or a household arrangement.

    On the other hand…we see “choice” in many other contexts. Rugged individualism is part of the American self-image. National healthcare was scuttled because people thought they might not be able to choose their doctor–not, mind, whether they had one. And I can’t imagine anybody getting traction with pooh-poohing the right to choose your religion, or your congressional representatives, or your employer. “Choice” only seems to become minor when a marginalized group is involved.

25. Thanks everyone! There was something about Lisa’s post that made uncomfortable, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it (though the post was quite eloquent).

    It really began with the discussion she had with her roommate (which might have stemmed from the way I felt she too well explained her own position without properly explaining her friend’s). Something just didn’t feel right to me about the overall tone and I think tata’s last comment hit the nail on the head for me.

26. Oh, I was saying thanks cause the discussion here helped me sort it all out in my own mind. 🙂

27. This really seems to be a straw-argument. I don’t know any pro-choice activist or any organization (except maybe for the highly specialized ones like NARAL) that limits her/their philosophy to abortion rights. They are all in favor of birth control, better child care, honest sex-ed, better pre-natal care. And I think it’s a little unfair to blame “pro-choice” people for the choice vs. life dichotomy. We’re only in this battle because the other side wants to ban abortion and birth control.

    This is not to say I totally disagree with Lisa. Maybe she’s right – maybe we need to shoot higher and free ourselves from the dichotomy we’ve been forced into. It’s just, that’s hard to do when the other side keeps on attacking us on that flank.

28. @ tanglad

    No, I haven’t engaged with Lisa at her blog, because I don’t know her or her blog, and because I wanted to hear from some other people first before I decided whether my first impression – that she was not writing in good faith – was correct.

    Based on the discussion I’ve participated in here, I still think that is the case, so I’m not really interested in engaging with Lisa right now.

    @piny

    Thank you for your comments in reponse to mine and others, there is much there to think about.

29. Have you tried to engage with Lisa and talk about your concerns, disagreements, or things you “don’t get” about her post over at her blog?

    No. I usually avoiding commenting on small blogs because it feels so personal–on large blogs, like Feministe and Racialicious, I feel safe, because it’s more impersonal. That’s just me; I can’t speak for the others.

30. I think this is a fair question. Honestly? I was in a bitchy mood, and still am, and didn’t want to say a bunch of nasty things in the comments thread to a heartfelt and clearly personal post–look at the opening story.

    I’m still collecting my thoughts on the post overall, and I want to say something about the way the threads of argument and experience are connected–I think it’s really ineresting–but I don’t have a clear sense yet and I don’t want to fuck it up.

    I could always go over there and say that, couldn’t I?

31. human: “No, I haven’t engaged with Lisa at her blog… because I wanted to hear from some other people first before I decided whether my first impression – that she was not writing in good faith – was correct. . .I still think that is the case, so I’m not really interested in engaging with Lisa right now.”

    Medea: “No. I usually avoiding commenting on small blogs because it feels so personal–on large blogs, like Feministe and Racialicious, I feel safe, because it’s more impersonal.”

    So instead talking with Lisa to see if you understood her argument, you’d rather talk about her here in your large safe blog space and be validated by people with similar impressions. Wow. I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt that you at least tried. Sure, that’s your choice, but it’s funny (in a sad way) how you choose to summarily characterize her (“not writing in good faith” for ex.), considering how Lisa writes of othering and a significant population of women being taken out of the conversation.

32. You know, LaLubu, I don’t think the answer is to adopt the right’s rhetoric. Social activists have been pushing for all the things you and I want–access to good healthcare, safe living environments, safe environments for kids, quality education, access to birth control, the right for all women to have children (despite color, class, or marital status) and the ability for all women to have some real power over our lives. What’s that gotten us so far? Oddly enough, the right-wing and the popular imagination fall back on “choice,” as in “you chose to do this, and you must now pay the consequences.” It doesn’t matter how we frame it because frankly, there are way too many people out there who don’t give two shits about women, who are more interested in pushing their version of morality on women, and more interested in making women their scapegoats for their perceived ills of society.

    I’ve seen Dems try to reach common ground and use rhetoric they thought was palatable for the far right, and that’s gotten us screwed. It’s given the right credibility in the popular imagination and in the press; people seem to think that if you adopt someone’s rhetoric you buy into a certain amount.

    I don’t see any conflict between your experiences and mine, and its the same cause we’re fighting for. But I agree with Piny–choice is something that, in the US at least, is held to high esteem (the right to choose where you live, your religion, your marriage partner, the things you consume, the way you live, etc.). Yet when it comes to women, it’s suddenly frivolous. (Yet again, an example of how adopting the prevailing rhetoric doesn’t necessarily do much to advance our cause.)

    Yes, I agree, reproductive justice and reproductive rights are the terms that I prefer, as I’ve said elsewhere on this blog. And I agree that the “another conversation” attitude is not helpful–I’ve certainly heard similar sentiments when it comes to reproductive rights. But the terms we use will not sway the right wing, nor will they sway the mushy middle who demand sob stories and a sackcloth and ashes from the likes of me, and poverty and pentitence from single mothers.

    You want to see a movement in the grassroots? Hell, so do I! But that’s a far cry from adopting the terms of the right wing.

    @piny–These kinds of support are as important as safe and legal abortion, but…some of the moderates out there seem to see them as, er, game-changing. As though a woman might not have any other motive for not having that kid. I don’t want them to become an excuse to force women into childbearing.

    THIS. It makes people very uncomfortable to know that I had an abortion because I did not want to have a child, and I did not want to be pregnant. Even if everything was ideal, and I had all kinds of support if I decided to become a mother, I would have still had an abortion. This is untenable to a lot of people.

33. You know folks, I did post over at Lisa’s (very early this morning). She doesn’t bite, and it’s pretty nasty for you to assume that she isn’t posting in good faith. I agree with 99.9% of her post, and the things I’m uncomfortable with may very well be a visceral reaction to her (I’m finding more conflict with commenters than original blog postings either here or at Lisa’s).

    Lisa isn’t some right-wing asshole. She’s not someone calling pro-choice women Nazis or whores or whatever. If you don’t agree with her or find some of her reasoning/rhetoric suspect, why not just fucking post it there? She can enlighten you and clarify things. She’s actually quite nice.

34. Seconding Sheelzebub @33. You can disagree with what she has to say all you want, but to postulate that Lisa isn’t writing in good faith is pretty uncool, and incredibly unfounded.

35. THIS. It makes people very uncomfortable to know that I had an abortion because I did not want to have a child, and I did not want to be pregnant. Even if everything was ideal, and I had all kinds of support if I decided to become a mother, I would have still had an abortion. This is untenable to a lot of people.

    It worries me too because, well–it’s like with the idea that women will start opting into late-term abortions if they become legal, or that they won’t make use of birth control just because. That there’s no attractive difference between an abortion at eight weeks and an abortion months later, or reliable infertility vs. a slipshod version.

    Pregnancy is a non-negotiable part of reproduction. It’s not a burden any law or social agency or samaritan can take from any woman. It’s inalienable.

    And when I hear “moderate” social reformers–like Frank Schaeffer, like Obama and his policymakers–talking about support and care and assistance…I don’t hear much about the first-person experiential dimension of pregnancy. The birth mother part, the work of pregnancy and delivery, the role your body has to play. It’s a little creepy to see it become so disembodied, as though women won’t have to worry their pretty little heads about maternity.

36. Sheelzebub @ 33: … it’s pretty nasty for you to assume that she isn’t posting in good faith.

    I don’t know if “nasty” is the correct descriptor so much as “cynical” and “tired of being screwed over by glib rhetoric that sounds like they’re on our side but is really not”. There gets to be a point where people are guilty until proven innocent.

    I think Lisa is trying to find common ground, for sure, and at a high-level view, abortion isn’t the only issue to discuss when talking about women’s issues. It just so happens to be one of the most fraught, because women’s bodies are the battleground, here.

    But like tata, Medea and a couple others, I’m wary of hearing the whole “why talk about [X] when [Y] is more important?”

37. I do also think that Lisa posted in good faith–and I was glad she posted. And I think she deserves a response. But then again, I understand the flight instinct. I mean, my reaction to the first few paragraphs of that essay was, “Oh, FUCK Y–Wait, wait, breathe.”

    It’s just–the pro-life faction hasn’t just poisoned the equality and civil-rights well. It’s engaged in some hard cynical manipulation of our emotions–while branding women’s emotional responses as childish, selfish, and insane. As a pro-choicer, I’ve developed a visceral fear-rage-response to the mention of innocent babies or sweet little children in the context of reproductive rights, I shit you not. And it’s because all of that imagery, all that love and care and grace and generous strength of spirit, has been hooked to a vile message of brutal control. We love babies you murdered your baby you murdering whore.

    So it’s easier, I admit, to come over here and debate semantics and policy in responses to that post than to have an emotional conversation based on a heartfelt and emotional essay.

38. Jha, seriously, if you think she’s being glib, ask Lisa for specifics. She’s not made of eggshells, she won’t break, and she’ll answer you. We’re not BFF’s, we have disagreed, but I’ve read her posts and her comments on other blogs and she engages honestly.

    Piny, I get what you’re saying and I was hesitant to post at Lisa’s for that very reason. HOWEVER, given the history of interactions between majority-White blogs and WOC blogs, I’m not comfortable continuing to post on this thread. One big complaint many bloggers like BFP, Lisa, and Donna have had is that people will not engage with them on their own space and will talk about them in other “safer” (read: Whiter) spaces. I don’t like it when I feel erased as a woman (or as a naughty aboriton loving slut). I think I’ve been doing this to a fellow pinko blogger, and I’m going to stop.

39. That’s fine; thanks for letting me know. And yes, it’s a good point–especially the about and not with part. I commented over there a few hours ago, and it’s stil in mod. I’ll head back this evening.

40. Sheelzebub: I don’t think she‘s being glib, but the rhetoric she uses is. I’m perfectly willing to engage with her (and have posted there already), I just don’t like the phrasing she uses. 😛 We can’t all talk alike, and I fully recognize that.

41. Nicole:”Is the abortion debate important? Of course. It’s vital. But the fact that it so often drowns out voices calling for basic health care and human rights for women around the world is devastating. Abortion should merely be one piece of the puzzle, but instead it is often thrust to the foreground.”

    Huh? Some people, including the writer of the OP are making it seem like pro-choice is only about abortion. One of the biggest aspects of the pro-choice movement is that women deserve comprehensive health care, education, access to family planning and knowledge. Women also deserve education and sexual autonomy. How does calling one’s self pro-choice mean you value abortion over all those things. Does being feminist mean you devalue anti-racism? No. To me you and the OP writer seem full of yourselves. Ohhh,look we’re so cool we invent a new category. I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who doesn’t realize the importance of and advocate for comprehensive health care and education for women.
    Every pro-choice activist I have ever met realizes that a woman’s right to an abortion is not going to be recognized and made available in any area where women do not receive education, health care, and have autonomy over their own bodies. Furthermore, if women do not have access to good comprehensive health care, education, and reproductive planning, it is highly unlikely she will have access to a safe abortion. Therefore, the issues can not be separated. Being pro-choice, really pro-choice necessitates supporting all of those things. If someone feels this way, not calling themselves pro-choice is a total cop out. It’s garbage. It seems like people on the left (mainstream “left) are always a little to willing to toss out a word that has become problematic because it is used as a slur or looked at with disfavor by the right.
    I am pro-choice and every pro-choice person I know believes that we have to fight the war for women rights on every front. Pro-choice means knowing that women need access to universal comprehensive health, education, literacy, bodily autonomy, safety, and reproductive justice and education. Where those things do not exist, neither will the ability to choose an abortion. Where the access to a safe abortion does not exist for women of every social class, chances are, none of those other things will either.
    Do you and your cohorts really think it is a coincidence that the same people who call themselves “pro-life” often want to restrict women’s knowledge of reproductive issues? So much so that they withhold HIV/AIDS treatment money from clinics in developing nations that do not preach abstinence only or council women on abortion as an option? Or are the same people who tout studies about how women are naturally happier as stay at home moms? Or fight against universal pre- and post-natal health care? Or are hell bent on destroying the social safety-net in every way possible? Or who push for neo-liberal and neo-conservative policies that completely cause instability in the lives of billions of women in the developing world and pretty much insure that they will continue to lack basic human rights?
    You say abortion drowns everything else out? Really, because looking at the mobilization around PEPFAR it sure as hell did not seem like the case then. It seemed like outrage moralistic posturing was keeping people from comprehensive education and as a direct result: comprehensive sexual health and access to life-saving medications.
    People who call themselves pro-abortion may only care about abortion and ignore the fight for women’s health and basic human rights (though abortion is definitely a health and human rights issue), people who are pro-choice ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT. NOT POSSIBLE. NO WAY NO HOW.
    If you have a problem with how your little section of the pro-choice movement looks, whatever. You could try to join with all the other pro-choice people who realize the need for comprehensive women’s rights, or you could stomp your feet and feel smug about yourself for not being pro-choice. But for you or anyone else to say the pro-choice movement is not about women’s rights is garbage. If some people who ID as pro-choice feel that abortion is end all, be all, the problem is with them, not the movement.
    Being pro-choice means you know damn well there is no real “choice” when women have no healthcare, education and freedom. There is no real “choice” in choosing between risking death or a lifetime chronic condition giving birth to a child you did not want to conceive in the first place and risking death from a botched abortion or complete social castration or retaliatory harm if the abortion is successful and someone finds out.
    But continue to feel smug about yourselves and bash us poor poor misguided members of the pro-choice movement. Because goodness knows a pro-choice person would never, ever work with organizations who oppose abortion even if they were furthering human rights in other areas. No sireee. Not in a million years. Why we would rather sit on our buts watching t.v. than work with Catholic Charities to help a woman get refugee status and help her should she wind up here. Yeah, what’s the point in IDing as pro-choice when you can stand back and look down your nose at those people that do.

42. Oh yeah, if that came off as a somewhat personal attack on the writer of the OP and those that feel that way, it’s because it is. It’s one thing to write against people that don’t care about women’s health and freedom in a comprehensive manner and quite another to say pro-choice people don’t care about women’s health. That was a very personal attack against me and a lot of people I know.

43. I wonder if this is helpful in exploring the frustration with proponents of a middle ground.

    I think the “about and not with” point is good as well (my comment over there is in mod). However, I think the problematic portion is speculating about the post writer or her motivations over here. That’s inappropriate. I don’t think it’s problematic to discuss the general issues raised about where the boundaries of the pro choice issue should be drawn, anywhere, especially if one alerts the author of the OP to the related conversation. The best blog posts should lead to a network of different conversations. If those conversations deal with the specific interpretation of a particular post, then yeah, IMO it’s best to engage directly with the OP.

44. So instead talking with Lisa to see if you understood her argument, you’d rather talk about her here in your large safe blog space and be validated by people with similar impressions. Wow. I thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt that you at least tried. Sure, that’s your choice, but it’s funny (in a sad way) how you choose to summarily characterize her (”not writing in good faith” for ex.), considering how Lisa writes of othering and a significant population of women being taken out of the conversation.

    For what it’s worth, I never assumed that Lisa was writing in bad faith.

    I dislike commenting on small blogs even when the writer says something I agree with, even when all my opinions would be “validated.” That’s not the point; I just hate the feeling of being in someone’s “space.” This doesn’t feel like Jill’s space, or Holly’s space.

    And–a larger question–what is wrong with discussing something here? That’s done all the time. When a Feministe blogger criticizes an article written by Linda Hirshman, the commenters don’t attempt to contact Linda Hirshman. Linda Hirshman can–and did once, I believe–show up in the comments here, but what she writes can be taken on its own and talked about with or without her.

45. And–a larger question–what is wrong with discussing something here? That’s done all the time. When a Feministe blogger criticizes an article written by Linda Hirshman, the commenters don’t attempt to contact Linda Hirshman. Linda Hirshman can–and did once, I believe–show up in the comments here, but what she writes can be taken on its own and talked about with or without her.

    Read Sheelzebub’s comment at #38. Linda Hirshman’s voice isn’t marginalized within the feminist movement. The voices of women of color are frequently marginalized, silienced, stolen from, etc. within the mainstream, predominantly white, predominantly middle-class, feminist movement.

46. Oh for fuck’s sake, Tracey. Guess what — personal attacks are against the comment policy. You want to make them, do it somewhere else. If you keep doing it here, and basically bragging about it no less, you’ll be banned.

47. Medea: “And–a larger question–what is wrong with discussing something here? That’s done all the time. When a Feministe blogger criticizes an article written by Linda Hirshman…”

    I know that’s done all the time, and that’s a problem. What La Lubu said in #45 and Sheelzebub said in #38.

    Jill discussed Hirschman in her post thoroughly, so the discussion was about both Jill’s analysis as well as Hirschman. In this one, there was just a link to Lisa’s post, where a discussion was already going on. There is also an implicit “well, Lisa come come in here to talk with us like Hirschman did” vibe in your words. It’s not enough that Lisa puts the post up, she has to engage with you on your terms, where you’re comfortable, and only then will you engage with her.

    There is a long history of refusal to engage with marginalized women’s voices, a practice that also contributes to cooptation and silencing. Whether or not you were aware of this history, your refusal to engage contributes to all that.

48. @tanglad

    That’s a good point.

49. I agree with Sheelzebub.

    I do think there are quite a number of pro-choice people — often young, privileged white women — for whom everything does come back to abortion and birth control. (“Poor women are having trouble supporting their kids? This is why abortion and birth control are so important!” Um no.) And there is a racist/classist tendency to say, oh, so-and-so shouldn’t be having kids she “can’t afford”. But the classist pro-choice “just abort” is matched on the anti-choice right with “just never have sex”. The right-to-lifers aren’t overall any kinder to poor mothers, single mothers, mothers of colour, women who want children and “shouldn’t” have them.

    And ultimately there are women, of all backgrounds, who choose abortion because they sincerely do not want to bear or parent a child at that time (or ever), and steamrolling over those women in the name of “holistic” feminism doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.

    As for the older women with the rosaries, the ones Lisa mentions we could learn from because of their age and experience, I’m not really interested in dealing with them when they’re standing outside my local clinic, spitting insults at me and the patients I escort. I would love to know what has happened in their lives to make them so angry and vicious with other, younger women, but it’s not like they’re going to tell me. Women can be misogynists too.

50. And–a larger question–what is wrong with discussing something here? That’s done all the time. When a Feministe blogger criticizes an article written by Linda Hirshman, the commenters don’t attempt to contact Linda Hirshman. Linda Hirshman can–and did once, I believe–show up in the comments here, but what she writes can be taken on its own and talked about with or without her.

    That’s a poor analogy. For one thing, as other commenters have said, Linda Hirshman is not marginalized–in fact, she’s on a higher tier than Feministe. She’s not really a blogger, either.

    For another, I think the disinterest in engaging with Linda Hirshman and Linda Hirshman’s spaces–like Double X–is a negative judgment on Hirshman; I think she would be right to take it personally. She has a pretty strong animus against younger feminists, and a milder one against your hardworking editors. (Hell, she doesn’t even seem to realize when she’s insulting us anymore.) And I don’t think many of the Feministers think she’s awesome. So of course we’d sling her work up here and take issue with it.

    That’s not the situation here, is it?

51. I think piny’s first reason why the situation with Hirshman can’t be analogized to the situation at hand is right on. Hirshman’s more well known, albeit is controversial in many circles, than Feministe bloggers, therefore not marginalizable.

    I think the second is overbroad, though. Granted, on a personal level I have agreements and disagreements with both Lisa and Linda but agree with the judgment here that Lisa’s writing (and having met her, Lisa IRL) is consistently respectful of people in general and women in particular, while Linda’s isn’t. However, while I take significant issue with a number of things Hirshman has written, I do think a lot of what she’s written is right on. For those of us whose policy is not to write people off wholesale, it’s unfair to say there’s a consensed position here about her (unless “Feministers” is meant to refer to editors rather than commenters).

52. Ok, so is this feminist blogging dilemma #346? Sometimes people say that privileged feminists should not comment critically on marginalized people’s smaller blogs because they are supposed to be a “safe space”. But then at the same time, it is rude and “erasing” not to make the critical comment directly on her blog? Swear to god I am not trying to be difficult here.

Comments are currently closed.