In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Outlawing Sex-Selective Abortion

One thing I haven’t heard from supporters of making sex-selective abortion illegal: What good would it do?

Sex-selective abortion isn’t a big problem in the United States — it does happen, but very rarely. The move to make it illegal (which failed, but I’m sure isn’t the last effort) isn’t about a repulsion at sexism, it’s about an opposition to abortion rights generally and an easy opportunity shoehorn in some restrictions (and a hostility toward non-white people doesn’t hurt, either). If Republicans really wanted to end sexism, they would support abortion rights generally — the rights to one’s own body and reproductive choices are fundamental, and barring women from those rights positions us as second-class citizens. If Republicans really wanted to end sexism, they would support a variety of feminist positions that seek to dismantle the idea that men are preferable or stronger or more capable — the ideas that underlie a preference for male babies.

Instead, Republicans want to put doctors in jail if they perform sex-selective abortions. Which puts doctors in a position of refusing to perform abortions if they know — or reasonably believe, or should have known — that the patient is having the abortion because they want a child of a particular sex. Doctors, then, are in the business of policing why patients what an otherwise legal, elective procedure; and patients, not being totally stupid, will surely catch on that they just shouldn’t say or hint at the fact that they’re terminating because of the fetus’s sex.

Now, very few people — and definitely very few feminist-minded people — think sex-selective abortion is a good thing, or even a morally neutral thing. Of course I support the legal right to choose abortion for whatever reason, but that doesn’t mean that I think every reason is a morally sound one just because a woman chooses it. I do find sex-selective abortion to be totally reprehensible. But the bigger problem isn’t an individual woman who decides to have an abortion because the fetus is female; the bigger problem is misogynist cultures that make raising a girl a burden. The solution to sex-selective abortion isn’t individual shaming; it’s big cultural shifts.

But Republicans would like to stick to the shaming. And it’s not just general woman-shaming — although of course they’re champs at that. They’re also clearly making this about race, and positioning Asian and South Asian immigrants as morally bankrupt sexists:

The debate on the House floor was brief but nasty. Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) warned of a contagion spreading from Asia. “Today the three most dangerous words in China and India are ‘It’s a girl,’ ” he said. “We can’t let that happen here.”

Spoken like someone who has no idea what he’s talking about.

True to form, Republicans are also paternalistic and condescending to women. Women who have abortions, they think, are simultaneously killing their own children and also victims of coercion by… someone:

In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Franks didn’t dispute that Asian Americans would be targeted. “The real target in the Asian community here is the Asian women who are being coerced into aborting little girls,” he told me, adding: “When the left doesn’t want to make abortion the issue, they say you’re being against minorities.”

Who exactly is coercing all of these Asian women into terminating their pregnancies? We have to assume doctors, since doctors are the ones who Franks says should be punished by jail time for the offense of performing sex-selective abortions. But that can’t be right, since abortion providers apparently aren’t pushing other racial groups to have sex-selective abortions. So women are being coerced by… their husbands, maybe? Some outside force? But of course are never actually making choices on their own. Republicans seem to think the same thing about black women, who they say are racist for having abortions:

Franks is a principled and consistent opponent of abortion, but his strategy has raised eyebrows before because of its racial component. In 2010, he said in a video interview that, because of abortion, “far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.” (Franks told me this does not mean African Americans were better off under slavery.)

In 2011, he championed the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.” That proposal, similar to the one before the House on Wednesday, relied on the novel argument that African American mothers were discriminating against their fetuses by aborting them on the basis of race.

Anti-choice politicians want to make abortion illegal. That’s it. And they’ll appeal to broader issues like sexism and racism to make their claims, all while being mighty sexist and racist in the process. It’s an impressive performance.


183 thoughts on Outlawing Sex-Selective Abortion

  1. The only thing that legislation like this actually accomplishes is perpetuating the myth that women who seek abortions are flippant monsters.
    It gives people who know nothing about reproductive rights a soundbite to latch onto. “Why should a woman be allowed to choose the sex of her baby?” It’s akin to that ridiculous piece of legislation in Georgia that outlaws late term abortions. When 3% of abortions fall into that category, and are almost always done for medical reasons.

    The whole thing is ridiculous and makes me sick. Do people actually believe that there are that many women that use abortion as a sex selection tool- so many that it actually warrants legislation? For the love of christ and everything holy- I am losing faith in humanity.

  2. The thing is that you have admitted that the question whether to have an abortion or not is a moral question. But that means that you have to justify why people should not be punished for making the morally quote “reprehensible” choice of sex-selective abortion. There could be good reasons for not punishing people in the same way that people are usually not punished for lying although we agree that lying is morally wrong at least some of the time. Now you took the easy way out and blamed it on culture.

    But the problem is that if you ask people whether they want a boy or a girl a few people will say that they prefer to have a girl because girls are “easier”. So it is conceivable that people will for that reason abort boys because they are boys. But now you have to explain why people should not be punished for having abortions because of this purely practical reason. Or don’t you think that aborting boys because they are boys is morally reprehensible?

    1. The thing is that you have admitted that the question whether to have an abortion or not is a moral question.

      Well, sure — but many of the choices we make in life have moral/ethical components to them. In the thread below this one, people brought up the ethical implications of selecting certain travel destinations. That doesn’t mean, though, that travel itself is unethical. Because abortion, like most other things in life, can sometimes raise moral/ethical issues — like when, for example, abortion is used specifically because of bias against a particular sex / race / etc. We don’t always punish people solely for making morally questionable (or even morally wrong) decisions. I mean, I think eating at McDonalds is morally wrong — it gives money to a poisonous agricultural system, it helps to support a food system that is killing us, it gives money to an enormous and entirely horrible corporation, etc etc. But I don’t think people should be punished for eating at McDonalds, and I don’t think that eating itself is an immoral act. Why? Because the problem isn’t the people who eat at McDonalds. The problem is McDonalds itself; it’s the complex political and cultural system that allows McDonalds to thrive and to become ubiquitous. It’s not taking “the easy way out” to say that, any more than it’s taking the easy way out to say that the problem isn’t with individuals who have sex-selective abortions. Nor is the problem abortion itself. The problem is misogynist political and social norms that incentivize certain behaviors. Those norms are immoral; abortion in some circumstances becomes a tool to further those norms, and a tool which is used to react to them. That doesn’t make abortion in and of itself a moral wrong. Although, like I said above, almost everything in life poses some set of moral questions, so it doesn’t really bother me that abortion would too. The conversation just needs to be a little more nuanced than “Abortion is either moral or immoral,” which is what anti-choicers seem to fall back on.

      Also, anon male, now that I’ve said all of that, didn’t we ban you a while ago?

  3. But the problem is that if you ask people whether they want a boy or a girl a few people will say that they prefer to have a girl because girls are “easier”. So it is conceivable that people will for that reason abort boys because they are boys.

    Mild preferences usually don’t translate into getting pregnant and then going through an invasive medical procedure over and over until you get what you want. It usually just means you do some of those intercourse timing tips for getting the sex you want or drop some money on one of those sex-selection kits on a lark.

  4. bias against a particular sex / race / etc.

    So while I kind of understand a preference for a girl/boy (though I realize that such is rooted in sexism), I do not understand how the race-based abortion is supposed to work. Presumably if you had that much aversion to a particular race, you wouldn’t sleep with someone of that race in the first place. It just doesn’t make any sense to say that African American women are aborting because their babies will be black; their babies will almost always be black (and it’s not like there’s a genetic test to determine if a given fetus will be able to “pass” as white).

  5. But the problem is that if you ask people whether they want a boy or a girl a few people will say that they prefer to have a girl because girls are “easier”.

    It’s not a “purely practical” reason. Views like that are the result of sexist stereotypes – therefore, culture is the real problem here. People tend to see little girls as more nurturing, kind, and relaxed because of their femininity. That’s why they appear to be easier to raise in the eyes of many people.

  6. I hope this question falls sufficiently within the scope of the discussion; it’s something I’ve wondered about since I first came across feminist discussion of sex-selective abortion.

    Is a sex-selective abortion okay if the parents want a girl?

    I have to stress that I don’t mean that as some kind of “gotcha” question. Reasons and structures matter in decisions like these, and a decision to have an abortion and try again for a girl would be motivated by very different reasons from the “typical” sex-selective abortion, and would not reinforce a cultural attitude that devalues women.

    To be more specific, I’m thinking of a situation where a couple are excited by the prospect of raising a girl because of their own personal histories and extant relationships. They would also prefer to avoid certain complications and conflict that might arise regarding expectations of male circumcision. Would a sex-selective abortion in that case be a bad thing?

  7. Beaten to the punch again. Oh well.

    Views like that are the result of sexist stereotypes – therefore, culture is the real problem here. People tend to see little girls as more nurturing, kind, and relaxed because of their femininity. That’s why they appear to be easier to raise in the eyes of many people.

    That’s a great point. Hadn’t thought of things that way before.

  8. Re: problems with sex-selective abortion

    Not to mention that choosing a foetus’ chromosomal make-up on the assumption that this will result in a baby with a particular sex identity/gender presentation/gendered personality traits doesn’t do much to encourage people to allow their kids to define their own personality and gender identity.

    But the point made in the OP, that the people pushing to ban abortion on these grounds are not doing so for the purposes of sex and gender equality is a solid one. Sex-selective abortion is fucked up, but these sexist, racist measures definitely aren’t a solution.

  9. You know, I think it’s immoral to divorce your spouse, a la Newt Gingrich, because they got sick and you can’t be bothered anymore. But I don’t think he should go to jail for it, nor do I think divorce should be outlawed to cover these very rare cases where someone does it for the “wrong” reason.

  10. The thing is that you have admitted that the question whether to have an abortion or not is a moral question. But that means that you have to justify why people should not be punished for making the morally quote “reprehensible” choice of sex-selective abortion.

    Seriously? Lots and lots of reprehensibly immoral things are not legally punishable. My father cut off contact with me for years because I made fun of Marxism. Morally reprehensible? Yes. Absurd? Definitely. Should it be illegal? Are you fucking kidding me? Cheating on your partner. Blabbing somebody’s innermost secrets on Facebook. Lying about one’s feelings for someone in order to get laid. Plagiarizing a paper for my class (oh, well, maybe that one should be punished with jail time, OK). All morally reprehensible. None of them illegal. Doing something lousy–even being a lousy person–is not against the law. Nor should it be.

  11. The thing is that you have admitted that the question whether to have an abortion or not is a moral legal question.

    Fixed that for you. When you ask the right question, you get a better answer. The debate isn’t over whether or not it’s good and right to abort fetuses for this reason, but whether or not doctors should go to jail for it. Clearly, the answer is no, unless you simply have an overt misogynist agenda and are looking for an excuse to lock up providers of necessary women’s health services on false pretenses.

  12. That’s a great point. Hadn’t thought of things that way before.

    Well, it’s possible that there could be some other reasons such people perceive are purely practical, but I don’t think non-sexist reasons exist. I mean, I personally can’t conceive of a general reason for preferring raising girls to raising boys that doesn’t have anything to do with a belief that the sexes are fundamentally different in some relevant respect. In any case, the perception that girls are easier to raise is, more often than not, a product of sexist sociocultural attitudes. And that’s why culture is the main problem.

  13. But the bigger problem isn’t an individual woman who decides to have an abortion because the fetus is female; the bigger problem is misogynist cultures that make raising a girl a burden. The solution to sex-selective abortion isn’t individual shaming; it’s big cultural shifts.

    Thank you.

    Part of the reason this argument drives me nuts is: okay, say you’ve stopped your hypothetical misogynistic-parents-who-would-prefer-a-boy from aborting their daughter. Hurrah!
    Then what happens to the girl?

    Maybe her parents have a change of heart and decide: yay, we have a daughter, and we will love and cherish her. But what if they don’t? What do you think her life will be like?

    Are you (hypothetical people who want to “stop” sex-selective abortions) willing to do the hard cultural work of changing people’s perceptions about women/ combating gendered stereotypes/ giving women more economic opportunities/giving them bodily autonomy/ fighting rape culture etc. in order to give these girls better lives?
    Somehow I doubt it.

    But who cares if girls grow up in a deeply misogynistic landscape as long as they’re alive?

  14. The thing is that you have admitted that the question whether to have an abortion or not is a moral question. But that means that you have to justify why people should not be punished for making the morally quote “reprehensible” choice of sex-selective abortion. There could be good reasons for not punishing people in the same way that people are usually not punished for lying although we agree that lying is morally wrong at least some of the time. Now you took the easy way out and blamed it on culture.

    Well maybe perhaps there are some things that law should not get envolved in, you know? Like if people are being racist or homophobic out in the street or like, religious people excommuniting their family members and things like this that happens in the more personal space, or even simple things like if I’m really mean to my friend… These things are morally wrong indeed but it is not really a suitable topic to get the pork envolved, because it’s part of personal beliefs rather than other things.

    In the end I really don’t know though, obviously issues such as this are very difficult…

  15. But the problem is that if you ask people whether they want a boy or a girl a few people will say that they prefer to have a girl because girls are “easier”. So it is conceivable that people will for that reason abort boys because they are boys.

    My neighbors recently had a 3rd kid. They decided to try one more time for a girl, the father wanted desperately to have a baby girl. When they found out it was going to be a boy, they had him any way. Pretty much no one in the US chooses to abort because of the sex of the kid.
    This kind of legislation is just a political posturing and asshole-ness.

  16. I hope this question falls sufficiently within the scope of the discussion; it’s something I’ve wondered about since I first came across feminist discussion of sex-selective abortion.

    Is a sex-selective abortion okay if the parents want a girl?

    Errr….did you read the OP? Jill is defending those who would prosecute people for sex-selective abortion. So, obviously she thinks it’s “okay” no matter what sex child the parents want.

    So, no, your comment/question doesn’t fit the scope of the discussion in the slightest, not one tiny bit. Rather, it fits your narrow conception as to what a feminist argument regarding sex-selective abortion should be.

  17. A lot of traditionally-minded people want girls because “girls will take care of you in your old age.”

    Whereas boys are just expected to fuck off somewhere and send an occasional postcard.

    And such expectations always end up hurting the children in question – or so I have observed.

  18. I strongly agree with the OP line about the desirabilty to the anti-abortion side of being able to shoehorn in restrictions. Chip away enough here and enough there, and not only does the “problem” become more manageable but a right comes to look like a privilege, which is a significant hurdle to clear from either direction.

  19. Seriously? They’re trying this in America? Where polls show that people actually have a slight preference for girls, and there isn’t a problem with sex ratios overall, despite legalized abortion? It didn’t work when they tried it countries where sex selective abortion is actually a huge problem and the governments had much more heavy handed ways of enforcing the law.

    No, no. This is not about sex selective abortion. It’s about conservatives throwing the kitchen sink at abortion rights, and hoping something sticks.

    Anything that they can use to make abortion rights look baaaad, especially baaaad for women or minorities, they consider to be their golden goose. They desperately want to appropriate the language of civil rights for their own purposes, even though they couldn’t care less about it.

  20. Errr….did you read the OP? Jill is defending those who would prosecute people for sex-selective abortion. So, obviously she thinks it’s “okay” no matter what sex child the parents want.

    The OP that sees Jill refer to sex-selective abortion as “reprehensible”? I read that, yes.

    My wording was unclear though. I meant “okay” as in “relatively less reprehensible”, not “permissible”.

  21. Presumably if you had that much aversion to a particular race, you wouldn’t sleep with someone of that race in the first place. It just doesn’t make any sense to say that African American women are aborting because their babies will be black; their babies will almost always be black (and it’s not like there’s a genetic test to determine if a given fetus will be able to “pass” as white).

    I know black women who SPECIFICALLY want MIXED children. You can’t tell if the kid will “pass” as white but you can give it a good chance. And if she happens to fall in love with a black man (or be attracted enough to have sex) then yeah she can get an abortion based on the race of the child.

  22. It infuriates me to see Republicans using this platform. Black women and women of color in general have historically been encouraged to abort their children (there have been been ads and posters comparing these women to animals who needed to control their breeding.) While moderately wealthy suburban white women were fighting for the right to have an abortion between their pedicures and cocktails, minority women were fighting for the right to have a family.

    And to see it twisted by these sexist bigots pretending to care is DISGUSTING.

  23. Ugh.

    Why is it anyone else’s business WHY a woman makes a *real* decision to have an abortion?

    If she isn’t doing it out of necessity (she feels she MUST because of medical/health/mortality reasons, finances, abusive partner etc) why is there a concern ? Her body her choice, even when you don’t approve of her reason.

  24. While moderately wealthy suburban white women were fighting for the right to have an abortion between their pedicures and cocktails

    Not that I identify with these folks, but, ugh…really? You needed to put this in?

    And here I agreed with the rest of your comment…

  25. To say nothing of the fact that it’s inaccurate about the abortion rights movement.

    Also, cocktails are fun and tasty. They must be PROBLEMATIC.

  26. Black women and women of color in general have historically been encouraged to abort their children

    Historically? During the time when abortion was illegal in every state in the USA? Abortion, not sterilization? You’re sure about that?

    While moderately wealthy suburban white women were fighting for the right to have an abortion between their pedicures and cocktails,

    You seriously believe that’s a remotely accurate historical characterization? Or is that just “poetic license”?

  27. Seriously? You’re offended by my characterizing wealthy white women as drinking cocktails and getting pedicures? Gimme a fucking break.

    Fucking unbelievable.

  28. Azalea: Because healthy independent women make the Baby Jesus cry. Well, I kid, but that’s what most anti-choice positions boil down to.

    Nahida: First of all, I like and respect you- and I also think you’re playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, a lot of women of color were sterilized in the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. However, sterilization is not the same as abortion, and I think that if women of color had been forced to abort en masse, we’d all know about it.

    Secondly, do you really have to take potshots at suburbanites? Yeah, I’m the first to admit I like a good suburban hate-on as much as anyone- bland, vanilla soul-less voids that they are- but let’s save that for another thread. Also, I sincerely doubt that there are any pro-choice suburbanites. All the progressives live in cities.

  29. Nahida: Also- white girl here, can barely afford a cocktail, never mind a pedicure. Not all of us whities are rich, ya know.

  30. Seriously? You’re offended by my characterizing wealthy white women as drinking cocktails and getting pedicures? Gimme a fucking break.

    No. I’m irritated by the mischaracterization of the abortion rights movement as a movement made up of wealthy white women.

  31. To say nothing of the fact that it’s inaccurate about the abortion rights movement.

    Yes, because THOSE are the pople I was referring to. The ABORTION RIGHTS movement. The HELL did I say that?

    God forbid anyone make fun of white women getting pedicures and drinking cocktails during a time they were telling WOC that race is irrelevant since all women have the same issues, because PROBLEMATIC.

  32. Nahida, I think that people are mostly offended by you seemingly characterizing fighting for abortion rights as just another frivolous unimportant thing women were doing, like drinking cocktails and getting pedicures.

  33. But pedicures are SERIOUS BUSINESS.

    No, really, it was just a comment on classism, and how dismissive white women were of the hardships faced specifically by women of color. Over cocktails. Obviously abortion rights aren’t frivolous.

  34. Yes, because THOSE are the pople I was referring to. The ABORTION RIGHTS movement. The HELL did I say that?

    …the part where you talk about women fighting for the right to have an abortion?

    Yeah, I can’t imagine how I would’ve made that mistake.

    God forbid anyone make fun of white women getting pedicures and drinking cocktails during a time they were telling WOC that race is irrelevant since all women have the same issues, because PROBLEMATIC.

    You realize, right, that the white second-wave feminists who were doing that were largely not suburban, largely not wealthy, and were really eschewing things like pedicures?

  35. You mentioned Republicans a bunch of times here, but 20 Democrats voted for this bill, and 9 abstained.

    QFT. This is not a party issue. This is a race issue. If the Democrats were solidly against the Republicans in this – are they in anything? – these many measures against abortion rights would never have been passed.

    Historically? During the time when abortion was illegal in every state in the USA? Abortion, not sterilization? You’re sure about that?

    I’m going to have to second that question, Nahida, as another person from a country with a history of forced sterilisation. Forced abortions and sterilisation are different. Both are hideous, though.

  36. No, really, it was just a comment on classism, and how dismissive white women were of the hardships faced specifically by women of color. Over cocktails. Obviously abortion rights aren’t frivolous.

    I’m glad to hear that that’s your opinion, because it certainly did not come across in that statement. You very much appeared to me — and apparently to others — to be suggesting that the abortion rights movement was the province of “moderately wealthy” white women preoccupied with pedicures and cocktails.

  37. I’m going to have to second that question, Nahida, as another person from a country with a history of forced sterilisation. Forced abortions and sterilisation are different. Both are hideous, though.

    Yup. I said ‘abortion’ when I was thinking of sterilization. Because in THAT context–I don’t make the distinction. They’re both manifestations of body-policing / baby-snatching racist bigotry. It didn’t make a difference to THEM if it was sterilization or abortion. As long as she doesn’t have another clearly inferior child. Because WOC aren’t people, and abortion is only baby-killing when we’re talking about human babies. And chickens.

  38. I have heard Conservative men say that abortion should be illegal for everyone but black women on welfare, in which case it should be required after a certain number of pregnancies. So yeah, no difference here.

  39. Also, anon male, now that I’ve said all of that, didn’t we ban you a while ago?

    Only on Feministe. <3s to Jill

  40. Has anyone explained how such a ban would work as a practical matter? Because, how would anybody know that an abortion was “sex-selective” in purpose, unless the woman having it stated that that was the reason? What would stop someone from making up another reason? Besides, I don’t remember exactly when during pregnancy it becomes possible to determine the chromosomal sex of the fetus (or when a particular appendage becomes visible on ultrasound), but under Roe v. Wade, no restrictions on first trimester abortions are permissible, so — in theory — nobody should be required to give any reason at all during the first trimester, and even an admittedly sex-selective abortion couldn’t be made illegal during that period.

  41. Aagh, Nahida, sorry for the comment spam, I keep posting too soon.

    Yup. I said ‘abortion’ when I was thinking of sterilization. Because in THAT context–I don’t make the distinction.

    Except that, were I forced to abort a wanted pregnancy tomorrow in my country of birth, I would still have a chance to have another child, by fleeing to another country. Might be able to provide for a future child by suing the doctor who forced me to abort when I had another option. Might get away from my abusive partner and get pregnant with another one. Sterilisation is fucking final for women. Please don’t downplay the atrocities unleashed on WOC in the US by conflating “encouraged abortions” with forced sterilisation.

  42. Sterilisation is fucking final for women. Please don’t downplay the atrocities unleashed on WOC in the US by conflating “encouraged abortions” with forced sterilisation.

    Yes, I’m sorry. I was thinking of abortion also being final, if it’s continuously, systematically forced on WOC the way I described that I’ve heard men suggest it be employed.

    And I also don’t think this is the first time in history such a suggestion has made its way into conversation.

  43. (Uh, warning for triggery imagery. I don’t often warn, but this is close to my fucking heart.)

    Here’s the problem with thinking that abortion restrictions solve sex-selective abortions and you don’t have to fix society because you outlawed the act itself: 1/10 Indian female children die within one year of birth. I had a 1/10 chance of dying at birth.

    So… outlawing abortion altogether hasn’t stopped female infanticide. Just maybe slowed foeticide. Which just means that instead of a clump of cells being medically expelled from a body, a sentient full human is having her head smashed against rocks or just being starved into oblivion. Way to fucking go, you guys.

  44. Hah, we all know the real reason why feminazis want to defend sex selective abortions! If fewer baby girls are born than boys, then the gender imbalance will cause girls to become more valuable and end sexism as we know it. Don’t think your plan isn’t transparent!

    (Yes, I’m being sarcastic)

  45. @Nahida – WOC weren’t the only group targeted with mass sterilisation. Girls and women with disabili?ties, and mental illnesses, were sterilised without their knowledge or consent.

    PWD/PWMI are still regarded as undesirable parents. All too often women are told they must never, ever breed. When someone gets pregnant, the default reaction from society is often horror, and “So you’ll be getting rid of it then?”, assuming that the pregnancy must be unwanted.

    Disabled women are supposed to be sexless beings. People entering into relationships with them get arse-pats and cookies for being so braaave and kiiind, because they’re assumed to be dating them out of pity, because who the hell could be sexually attracted to someone broken? Who’d want to run the risk of *gasp* producing more pathetic, damaged creatures?

  46. Chiara, again:

    Like if people are being racist or homophobic out in the street […] These things are morally wrong indeed but it is not really a suitable topic to get the pork envolved, because it’s part of personal beliefs rather than other things.

    “The pork?” You’re either 12, or thicker than a whale omelette.

    Racially or homophobically abusing someone is a hate crime in the UK*. How dare you refer to it as “part of personal beliefs”.

    Actions are not beliefs, beliefs stay inside your head. Beliefs that translate into abuse or harassment can’t be waved away with:

    “Sorry, I just think that Bengalis are disgusting, and don’t belong in this country, so I screamed at that old woman and told her to go back where
    she came from”

    or

    “I believe homosexuality is abhorrent, so I walked up to those people, with my ‘God Hates F*gs’ sign, and told them they’d be burning in hell-fire for all eternity. But it’s just what I believe, so it’s ok!”

    How in the name of fuck is that remotely like “being mean” to a friend, or refusing to speak to your ex-catholic family member? I’m dying to know.

    * Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.
    Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.
    The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

  47. Sorry Li, you’re quite right

    . I think my brain tries to block that out TBH, on days when I feel the boot of the kyriarchy on my neck.

    But yes, you’re correct, we un-people are bad breeding stock, the branches of our family tree need to be pruned.

    Of course, they’re only doing it for our own good.
    /rage

  48. Also, I sincerely doubt that there are any pro-choice suburbanites. All the progressives live in cities.

    I don’t know what to say.

  49. “The pork?” You’re either 12, or thicker than a whale omelette.

    Racially or homophobically abusing someone is a hate crime in the UK*. How dare you refer to it as “part of personal beliefs”.

    Actions are not beliefs, beliefs stay inside your head. Beliefs that translate into abuse or harassment can’t be waved away with:

    “Sorry, I just think that Bengalis are disgusting, and don’t belong in this country, so I screamed at that old woman and told her to go back where
    she came from”

    or

    “I believe homosexuality is abhorrent, so I walked up to those people, with my ‘God Hates F*gs’ sign, and told them they’d be burning in hell-fire for all eternity. But it’s just what I believe, so it’s ok!”

    How in the name of fuck is that remotely like “being mean” to a friend, or refusing to speak to your ex-catholic family member? I’m dying to know.

    Whoa…Chiara has said some risible things on this forum, but I don’t think this is one of them. Her comments certainly don’t warrant insults about her age. Who knows? Maybe she is young…probably younger than me. What is worse, a 12 year old or someone who lifts insults from a 20 year-old sitcom?

    The thing is, you totally twisted her point. She referred to “being racist or homophobic out in the street.” In no way did she refer to racially abusing someone, especially in the ways you describe. There is a difference between racist comment and racist harassment. If you’re waiting for a bus and some old granny is complaining about people of color moving into her neighborhood in a way that you can overhear, that is, as Chiara says “morally wrong,” but it doesn’t rise to the level of harassment, and therefore there would be no reason to get the pork involved.

  50. For a little while while reading through this thread I was worried about white women, because it really seemed like their honor was in danger of being impugned by Nahida. Thankfully, many defenders came to their rescue and now white women everywhere can enjoy their cocktails and pedicures in peace.

    Wasn’t this thread about a specific instance of the intersection of racism and sexism? Not when people like Nahida are oppressing the white people, not all of whom are rich you know!

    Nahida, it is impressive that you were both not valorizing white women enough AND not highlighting the victimization of WOC enough. And don’t forget how inaccurate you were being!

    I guess you drew the short straw on the Feministe playground today.

  51. Nahida, it is impressive that you were both not valorizing white women enough AND not highlighting the victimization of WOC enough.

    Huh? I don’t think I even mentioned white women. Sorry my background of forced sterilisation happening in living memory interfered with your ability to sufficiently enjoy the thread. Nahida and I worked out the boundaries of that agreement, so… how about you get pissy at someone else, hm?

    Nahida…

    I have heard Conservative men say that abortion should be illegal for everyone but black women on welfare, in which case it should be required after a certain number of pregnancies.

    You’re absolutely right, in that case there absolutely wouldn’t be a difference. (In fact, in terms of repeated trauma, I would argue that it would be infinitely worse.) It’d definitely be harder to pull off, and I haven’t heard of it happening in that manner (infanticide and sterilisation yes, abortion no?) but my US history isn’t exactly overwhelmingly accurate or anything.

  52. To return to the main article:

    That proposal, similar to the one before the House on Wednesday, relied on the novel argument that African American mothers were discriminating against their fetuses by aborting them on the basis of race.

    So, either dudebro thinks that
    a) Women are too fucking clueless to know that their baby might be the same race as them
    b) African Americans are (or feel) so inferior that they don’t want their own race to continue
    What?

    1. So, either dudebro thinks that
      a) Women are too fucking clueless to know that their baby might be the same race as them
      b) African Americans are (or feel) so inferior that they don’t want their own race to continue
      What?

      Actually, I think dudebro thinks, “I want to outlaw abortion, so I’m going to say that people who support abortion rights are racist and that abortion is genocide, even though the logical conclusion of my statement is that African American women are committing genocide against African Americans,” and so targets African-American women.

  53. macavitykitsune, I wasn’t talking about you at all.

    so… how about you get pissy at someone else, hm?

  54. macavitykitsune, I wasn’t talking about you at all.

    Except that I was the only one who brought up the fact that she was downplaying (some aspects of) WOC’s discrimination, so… um.

    Unless someone else was? IN which case, I apologise.

  55. I don’t think Jill is saying all sex-selective abortions are reprehensible. A couple which has two boys already might prefer a girl for variety purposes, and abort a male fetus. The same couple might also have also decided to stop at three children, and having discovered it was a fraternal twin pregnancy, been compel to abort one of the fetuses anyway. Making the choice based on gender preference those circumstances would not have been reprehensible, but inevitable.

    1. I don’t think Jill is saying all sex-selective abortions are reprehensible. A couple which has two boys already might prefer a girl for variety purposes, and abort a male fetus.

      I actually doubt that this happens with any regularity in the United States. Most people do not go through the ordeal of getting pregnant, staying pregnant for four to five months (until they can tell the sex of the fetus) and then terminating because they have two boys and they want a girl. And yes if a couple did that, I would say that’s pretty reprehensible. I still think it should be their legal right, no questions asked and none of my business, but if it were brought up at a dinner party I might make a face and think that perhaps they are not the most morally fit human beings (and kind of messed-up parents).

  56. Actually, I think dudebro thinks, “I want to outlaw abortion, so I’m going to say that people who support abortion rights are racist and that abortion is genocide, even though the logical conclusion of my statement is that African American women are committing genocide against African Americans,” and so targets African-American women.

    Oh, I know that. I was just being sarcastic, because honestly, the staggering volume of THEFUCKYOUSAID in that statement doesn’t inspire serious discourse in between *argleglargle* and *mockity mock mock* for me.

  57. “The pork?” You’re either 12, or thicker than a whale omelette.

    Well I don’t know about where you live or your social class but let me just say that the police are not always the friend of the people.

    Racially or homophobically abusing someone is a hate crime in the UK*. How dare you refer to it as “part of personal beliefs”.

    Actions are not beliefs, beliefs stay inside your head. Beliefs that translate into abuse or harassment can’t be waved away with:

    OK fair enough. What I was trying to explain in my comment was that there are some affairs that the law gets envolved in and some which it doesn’t. The law isn’t really about punishing things that are immoral. For example if I’m tagging on some old walls near the factories or the canals, I think most can agree that this is not immoral and it’s just a healthy self expression. However if the law catches me doing this they’re going to fine me, yeah?

    But on the other hand if I spread some lies about someone and then they get really messed up by that or like people stop being friends with them or something, that would have a serious affect on their wellbeing, and it would be much more morally wrong than some spray on a wall. However in this instance the law isn’t going to get envolved. Because it’s a interpersonal issue. You see what I’m trying to say?

  58. Past my expiration date: I don’t discuss politics with my suburban friends- but I sincerely doubt that any liberal would live in suburban purgatory. Suburbs are where white people go to eat unchallenging bland food, and to hide out from people who aren’t their sort. Seriously, it’s WASPville out there.

    DLL: A lot of the messes we are in today come as a result of people not knowing history. I personally think that if people cite history, they should be as accurate as possible. Abortion rights may seem frivolous to Nahida, but I take them seriously, as do many people here. Thus the blowback.

  59. It’s “reprehensible” and “morally unfit” to want a girl after having two boys, and to act on that preference when the opportunity arises? That seems a bit judgmental.

    Plus, the scenario arises frequently enough with IVF. Multiple embryos are the norm, and eventually a choice is made to cull the litter, so to speak. What’s the couple supposed to do if the doctor tells them that one’s male, one and is female, and which would they prefer? Leave it up to the doctor? Flip a coin?

    Do you consider every abortion reprehensible in some way? Is your moral disgust based on use of gender as a factor, or the development of the fetus at the time gender can be determined? If gender could be detected early in the first trimester, would the couple be morally fit if they aborted at that stage?

    1. It’s “reprehensible” and “morally unfit” to want a girl after having two boys, and to act on that preference when the opportunity arises? That seems a bit judgmental.

      I don’t think it’s reprehensible to have a slight preference for a girl or a boy. I do think it’s reprehensible to act on it. And yes of course that’s judgmental. Hi, welcome to the world, we judge things.

      IVF strikes me as a very different because as you said a choice MUST be made. And it’s my understanding that many couples who use IVF choose an embryo with XX chromosomes, not necessarily because they prefer a girl, but because xx chromosome fetuses tend to have fewer genetic abnormalities, so it’s a safer bet.

      And no I don’t consider every abortion to be morally reprehensible in some way. It’s not the abortion itself that I think is morally wrong. I do consider sexism to be morally reprehensible. As others have said, acting on a preference for a female baby or a male baby indicates that the person with the preference thinks that there are certain immutable characteristics that go along with having XX or XY chromosomes.

      Look: I’m not trying to outlaw anything here. As I’ve said, I think that abortion should be 100% legal regardless of motivation, and I don’t think women have to explain or justify WHY they wanted an abortion. I also know that sex-selective abortion is extremely rare in the United States, and sex-selective abortion for the reason you give — you have a few children of one gender, you want one of a different gender — is almost non-existent, because most people do not go through FIVE MONTHS of pregnancy just to have an elective abortion because they don’t want another boy or another girl. But yes, people are strange and I am sure someone somewhere has done that, and if that person exists, I think what they did is morally wrong. I will defend their right to do it, and I don’t think it should be illegal, but I personally find it repulsive.

  60. I was worried about white women, because it really seemed like their honor was in danger of being impugned by Nahida.

    Yes, that’s exactly right. It had nothing to do with dismissing the significance of abortion rights, because everybody knows that feminists don’t give a shit about that. It was all about valorizing white women.

  61. Besides which….continental Asians are, what, 4.8% of the US population at the moment? Now rule out the countries where female infanticide/foeticide (a term used specifically for sex-selection abortion in India, before anyone leaps down my throat) isn’t a major problem, which leaves us wtih, what, 7 nationalities that are problematic? Let’s say that leaves 2.8% of the population.

    Now rule out those who, for religious reasons, won’t consider abortion. Let’s be conservative and take the 25% the Gallup poll mentioned as no-abortions-ever. Leaves us with 2.1% of the population. Rule out the non-batshit people who don’t care what fucking gender their kid is – let’s be really offensively pessimistic about that and say that’s only 33% of the population (even in India, where SSA is an epidemic, SSA only has a 10% occurrence rate). This leaves us with approximately 1.4% that has a strong gender preference and isn’t forced-birth. Now, given that this 1.4% has a 50-50 chance of a male child being born – which they wouldn’t abort, obviously – you can drop it to 0.7% of the population. Assume that women are being forced and wouldn’t ever choose abortion themselves, since that’s the argument these chucklefucks are making, and this solely male decision makes the numbers drop to 0.35%. But I’m not going to count that part.

    Really? Restricting abortion services to 51 motherfucking percent of the population for a hypothetical 0.7% that might be aborting by gender?

    Fuck that. The numbers don’t even add up.

  62. Well, this suburbanite is so avidly pro-choice that I don’t even oppose sex-selective abortion or find it reprehensible it any way (morally or otherwise.)

    Because that fetus/embryo/zygote/whatever isn’t a full-fledged person yet, and a woman’s right to her own bodily autonomy should not be limited because anybody else is squicked out by her reasons for doing so.

    As an aside IVF doesn’t work the way many people think it does, the only way to determine the sex of an embryo is do undertake complicated and costly genetic testing. That testing has an increased risk of damaging the embryo(s) to such an extent that they are no longer useable for transfer. Thus, between the cost and additional risk of tanking an IVF cycle most of us chose not to use PGD unless there are other serious genetic issues in play that the parent(s) are hoping to avoid.

  63. Plus, the scenario arises frequently enough with IVF. Multiple embryos are the norm, and eventually a choice is made to cull the litter, so to speak. What’s the couple supposed to do if the doctor tells them that one’s male, one and is female, and which would they prefer?

    Unless you are worried about a specific genetic disorder, it’s not routine to do genetic testing on embryos during IVF (because there’s always a chance of messing up the embryo when you take one of the cells for testing and because genetic testing is expensive). Even if you want to sex-select due to an X-linked mutation, that is done by sperm sorting (X’s are conveniently heavier and slower) before fertilization, not through embryo testing.

    So your scenario wouldn’t even happen in IVF, because outside of the two exceptions above, the doctor will say “you have # of embryos, I’ll transfer 1-2 of the healthiest looking and freeze the rest for later cycles.”

  64. Fat Steve – First, I’ll remind you that Chiara knows precisely fuck-all about race or sexuality issues. She has claimed that her country has no gay people, and no POC. That gay couples are comprised of “the trucker and a fashion guy”

    They were actually her least offensive statements.

    So, back to: homophobia and racism, which of these affects you, one or both? My main source of frustration is her saying “It’s just a personal belief that anyone not straight and not white is inferior!”, and then equating these things that cause systemic discrimination against minorities, to arguing with a friend.

    Also, nobody’s waiting around corners to arrest people who pepper their speech with slurs. People are. only arrested for abuse or harassment, things which. are legally and morally wrong. So why even bring it up in a conversation about abortion? Why add that there are some things the “pork” should not be prosecuting? She can’t mean casual use of slurs should stop being a matter for law enforcement,because that has never been an offence. here.

    And one more time, beliefs are. contained in the mind. Why would anyone be punished for the offence of “believing in the inherent inferiority of marginalised groups”?

    That’s right, they wouldn’t. They’re just “part of personal beliefs”. However:

    people [are] being racist or homophobic out in the street

    They’re actions, not beliefs. Actions with victims, and consequences. You cannot say “It’s just my beliefs man”.

    Thinking that Ricky Gdrvais isn’t remotely funny, is a belief, no judgement necessary, because it hurts nobody. Tracking him down and throwing shit at him, that is worthy of judgement.

    I’m fucking sick of people trying to restrict my rights because of something I have no control over, only to see other people handwaving it away with “They’re entitled to their beliefs “. In their heads? Fine. Out of the box and being used as a weapon? Fuck no

    Oh and she isn’t 12. So you can stop protecting her from the nasty dyke, who’s being mean to her. She can “splain perfectly well for herself.

  65. Oh and with regard to SSA – I’ll take any number of abortions, rather than running the risk of even. one little girl being abused, or killed, because her mother couldn’t abort her.

    It’s more bullshit, aimed at keeping us in our place

    . We’re too stupid to know what race our baby is, or too slutty and wasted to remember who we slept with. Quick, suction please Nurse!

    We want a matching boy/girl set, so we’ll keep on aborting at 22 weeks, until we get what we want.

    Shit, only 4 weeks to go , but. we’ve been asked to go to Cancun. Ah well, we’ll stop off somewhere on the way. hand over a few grand for a D&X, and get straight into that string bikini!

    Oh menz, save us from ourselves.

  66. Racially or homophobically abusing someone is a hate crime in the UK*. How dare you refer to it as “part of personal beliefs”.

    They’re actions, not beliefs. Actions with victims, and consequences. You cannot say “It’s just my beliefs man”.

    People are only arrested for abuse or harassment, things which are legally and morally wrong.

    Bullshit. The idea that the government should get to punish people for expressing their beliefs, even when those beliefs are repugnant, is as morally wrong as it is dangerous. The fact that some countries have decided to go down that road emphatically does not make it OK.

    You honestly can’t distinguish between defending someone’s right to freedom of expression and defending the things they chose to say?

    I’m fucking sick of people trying to restrict my rights because of something I have no control over, only to see other people handwaving it away with “They’re entitled to their beliefs “. In their heads? Fine. Out of the box and being used as a weapon? Fuck no

    You have no right to prevent other people from saying prejudiced things. You have the right to walk away or ignore them, you have the right to respond, you have the right not to be followed, and you have the right to keep them off your property, but your rights are not violated when other people say things, even when what they’re saying is totally, awfully, indefensibly bigoted.

  67. Partial Human I think you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. Read my reply that I wrote at number 71. All I was trying to articulate was that the law is not always about punishing morally bad things. It has a kind of separation between morally bad things happening in the personal sphere, which are often not illegal, and things which are illegal which is happening in the public sphere which are often not morally wrong.

    Like if I do some tagging, that’s illegal and I’ll get a fine but it’s arguably not morally wrong. But if like, a family disowns their kid who’s gay, that’s morally wrong, but the law won’t do shit about it. You know?

    Anyway I never said my country has no people of colour or gay people that’s a total lie about what I was saying. I don’t know many people of colour but that’s just how it is at least where I live, there are not many people of colour. Anyway I do know some gay people it’s just that being gay is not something you can be open about around here. For example I am attracted to women as well as men but I only go out with men. So you don’t know anything about me and don’t try to act like you do, yeah.

    Yeah I’ve made some stupid comments in the past and I’m really sorry about them for anyone who was hurt by them. But don’t just write off everything I say, I know some stuff about these issues.

  68. As others have said, embryo selection by chromosomal sex using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) isn’t routine in IVF. It adds thousands of dollars to the cost of an IVF cycle (which is already around $15k in the US, without PGD), and decreases live birth rates, particularly if there are already embryo quality issues in play. And elective PGD isn’t covered by insurance, even if you’re lucky enough to have IVF coverage in general.

    That said, there are certainly people who do IVF purely because they have a strong preference for a boy or a girl. I don’t think sex-selection IVF or sex-selection abortion should be illegal, but I find them equally morally questionable–many of the people I’ve met who are doing elective IVF for sex-selection are lovely as individuals, but I can’t help but cringe at how much money, time, and discomfort they’re investing to exercise a preference based in misogyny, sex stereotyping, and cissexism. Imagine being someone’s $20,000 (or $40,000, or $60,000) baby girl or baby boy, and having to come out to your parents as trans!

  69. Beh, not to get drawn into another I LURVES THE FREE SPEECH discussion, but hate speech and harassment? Actually a form of violence. I mean, amblingalong, do you oppose legislating against sexual harassment in cases where it is comprised solely of speech?

  70. Oh and she isn’t 12. So you can stop protecting her from the nasty dyke, who’s being mean to her. She can “splain perfectly well for herself.

    I didn’t think you were being mean, and I had no idea of your sexuality (or even of your gender.) I also mentioned that I disapproved of Chiara’s past statements. I was only agreeing with her on this tiny point of there being a difference between racist beliefs and racist abuse, both being horrible, but only one being illegal. Having said that, I don’t know why she brought it up, and as you point out it doesn’t fit in this context, so your main point clearly stands.

  71. Beh, not to get drawn into another I LURVES THE FREE SPEECH discussion, but hate speech and harassment? Actually a form of violence. I mean, amblingalong, do you oppose legislating against sexual harassment in cases where it is comprised solely of speech?

    ‘Hate speech’ and harassment are difference things. I’m sure you can see the distinction between pervasive workplace discrimination and someone shouting on the street. There are all kinds of things you can’t say- like, “I’m going to kill you” or “you can only have this job if you sleep with me.” That’s well and good. It’s also really not the same thing, in a very, very obvious way.

    ‘Hate speech,’ on the other hand, is a term which literally doesn’t mean anything. I get to criticize religious belief, which I find absurd, despite the fact that Bill Donahue thinks making fun of Catholicism is hate speech. You really think I should be sent to jail for expressing the reasons for my atheism (surely you don’t just think hate speech laws should only apply to people you disagree with)?

    Tell me, who do you think should get to define what types of speech are acceptable? Because fuck, a lot of the things written on feminist websites would probably be subject to prosecution if the US Congress was empowered to decide whose speech was allowed. The people in power aren’t always going to take your side.

    And if the definition of violence is broad enough to include simply saying prejudiced things, the word no longer has any meaning.

  72. @Politicalguineapig – erm, progressives don’t live in the suburbs? What? Maybe we’re not defining the suburbs the same? I think of suburbs as anything that’s not urban or rural. I know what you’re talking about with the Standford housing districts, but I always considered my home town, pop. about 15,000, surrounded by corn fields, no mall, one high school, to be suburban. We don’t live directly outside of a major metropolitan, however, and most of the housing has been there for awhile. What would you classify that as?

  73. PS- do you really think ad hominem (yeah, my post was exactly as carefully thought out and poorly spelled as saying “I LURV FREE SPEECH”) is your best strategy for making a convincing point? Or just coming across as an asshole?

  74. People have brought up some interesting ideas about how sex selection can be a huge deal when it comes to the parents’ expectations of what that child will be vs. what the child actually will be. So not just sexism, cissexism, perhaps homophobia, and a whole host of other things, but this is a very anti-child self hood idea as well. That your children are yours, you own them.

  75. PS- do you really think ad hominem (yeah, my post was exactly as carefully thought out and poorly spelled as saying “I LURV FREE SPEECH”) is your best strategy for making a convincing point? Or just coming across as an asshole?

    You did misspell Bill Donohue’s name, but quite frankly I looked upon that as a positive.

    1. Beh, not to get drawn into another I LURVES THE FREE SPEECH discussion, but hate speech and harassment? Actually a form of violence. I mean, amblingalong, do you oppose legislating against sexual harassment in cases where it is comprised solely of speech?

      I’m not amblingalong, but I would definitely oppose criminal sanctions for sexual harassment. I think it’s fair to draw the line more or less where it’s drawn under U.S. law — only criminalizing speech where that speech contains threats which place a person in reasonable fear of bodily harm.

      Private rights of action are another story, and I do think it’s fair to sue an employer for sexual harassment or for creating a hostile work environment. But criminalizing speech — even really abhorrent speech — is dangerous.

  76. I sincerely doubt that any liberal would live in suburban purgatory.

    I always wonder where you find these “facts” you love to assert with such confidence. Since unevidenced speculation appears to be the modus operandi here, I’ll engage in some myself: I think that women who live in suburbs in the USA are at least as likely to be in favor of abortion rights as women who live in cities, and probably more likely than women in rural areas.

    Also keep in mind that it’s hardly accurate to think that “suburb” is synonymous with either “wealthy” or, in some parts of the USA, white. You don’t have to go to France to find dingy, aging, depressed suburbs surrounding thriving urban downtowns. Whatever. Urban studies issues aren’t exactly on-topic for this thread.

  77. You did misspell Bill Donohue’s name, but quite frankly I looked upon that as a positive.

    Fair enough. But yeesh, it’d be nice if people could do better than ‘if I rephrase the other person’s arguments as if they were made by a stupid person, I make my points seem smarter!”

  78. most people do not go through FIVE MONTHS of pregnancy just to have an elective abortion because they don’t want another boy or another girl. But yes, people are strange and I am sure someone somewhere has done that, and if that person exists, I think what they did is morally wrong.

    Is a woman at any greater health risk having an abortion after five months than after fewer? (Hard to find anything on the internet about abortion risks that doesn’t come from a biased pro-life site.) If so, that also poses issues.

    1. Is a woman at any greater health risk having an abortion after five months than after fewer? (Hard to find anything on the internet about abortion risks that doesn’t come from a biased pro-life site.) If so, that also poses issues.

      Abortions that occur later are slightly less safe than early abortions. An abortion at five months requires greater dilation of the cervix; it’s a longer procedure, often two days. It’s still significantly safer than childbirth (and about as safe as getting your wisdom teeth removed), but yes, it is less safe than an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy.

  79. Private rights of action are another story, and I do think it’s fair to sue an employer for sexual harassment or for creating a hostile work environment. But criminalizing speech — even really abhorrent speech — is dangerous.

    QFT. I read “legislating against sexual harassment” as “creating provisions that would allow workers to sue for damages,” in which case I am completely supportive, but if it was meant to suggest actually criminalizing speech, then absolutely not.

    I’d really like someone to give me a definition of hate speech that would allow prosecution of the Bad Speech we all hate but wouldn’t send me to jail for identifying as an atheist (because guess what? I think believing in God is really, really silly, and I want to be allowed to say so).

  80. I was worried about white women, because it really seemed like their honor was in danger of being impugned by Nahida. Thankfully, many defenders came to their rescue and now white women everywhere can enjoy their cocktails and pedicures in peace.

    DLL, I understand that this kind of sarcasm is a time-honored tradition here. But it’s considerably less entertaining when the people you ridicule never said anything resembling what you seem to think they said. There’s a big difference between (1) criticizing someone’s disparaging comments about suburban white women; and (2) criticizing someone’s apparent suggestion — in a comment that was unclear at best, regardless of what Nahida eventually explained she had intended to convey — that abortion rights activism before Roe v. Wade was the exclusive (and implicitly frivolous) province of suburban white women otherwise preoccupied with cocktails and pedicures.

    The distinction is not subtle, and I’m rather surprised that you — as highly educated in pilpul as you are! — were apparently unable to perceive it. Or, perhaps, preferred to ignore it in the interest of taking potshots at people.

    Furthermore, I didn’t realize that it’s improper to point it out when someone makes a rather obviously erroneous statement of historical fact, asserting that in olden days in the USA, black women and WOC were encouraged to have abortions, apparently despite the fact that abortion was illegal everywhere — as one would think would be clear from the fact that that was the very situation that all those moderately wealthy suburban white abortion activists were trying to change at the exact same time. I understand that Nahida meant to refer to sterilizations, but, again, there was no way of knowing what her intent was until she explained it.

  81. Yeah, I’m the first to admit I like a good suburban hate-on as much as anyone- bland, vanilla soul-less voids that they are- but let’s save that for another thread.

    Suburbs are where white people go to eat unchallenging bland food, and to hide out from people who aren’t their sort. Seriously, it’s WASPville out there.

    The ignorance and laziness expressed here is astonishing.

  82. It infuriates me to see Republicans using this platform. Black women and women of color in general have historically been encouraged to abort their children (there have been been ads and posters comparing these women to animals who needed to control their breeding.) While moderately wealthy suburban white women were fighting for the right to have an abortion between their pedicures and cocktails, minority women were fighting for the right to have a family.

    And to see it twisted by these sexist bigots pretending to care is DISGUSTING.

    I see two historical references here.

    1) WOC have historically been encouraged to abort their children.
    2) During the fight for abortion rights in the US, the relatively more privileged white women fought for abortion rights for themselves while ignoring the greater difficulties faced by WOC in creating and supporting their own families.

    Neither of these ideas seem particularly contentious.

    I see a point about how infuriating it is that sexist bigots are using the idea that WOC faced relatively greater hardships in the area of family planning both now and historically to perpetuate sexism and bigotry.

    Then I saw a bunch of people miss this point really hard, presumably because they were in such a hurry to correct all the things they saw wrong with Nahida’s statement. Because that’s another “time-honored tradition here”. Perhaps I should post a lecture about it for you DonnaL.

    FTR, I don’t know what pilpul means.

  83. Imagine being someone’s $20,000 (or $40,000, or $60,000) baby girl or baby boy, and having to come out to your parents as trans!

    I would hope to God that even if you did IVF for no other reason than to get a child of a particular sex, you would at least have the good sense to never tell them that you did that. But that may be my naivete showing.

  84. Past my expiration date: I don’t discuss politics with my suburban friends- but I sincerely doubt that any liberal would live in suburban purgatory. Suburbs are where white people go to eat unchallenging bland food, and to hide out from people who aren’t their sort. Seriously, it’s WASPville out there.

    Oh! I had been thinking that my county of just under 1 million people was the suburbs. But 49% of the population is non-Hispanic white and 31% is foreign-born, and the public schools are attended by children speaking at least 126 different languages, so evidently I was mistaken.

    (Apparently neither the US Census nor the county public school system publishes data on consumption of challenging spicy food, so I can’t address that point specifically.)

  85. Neither of these ideas seem particularly contentious.

    Except for the assertion that both those things were allegedly taking place at the same time, which simply isn’t the case, and except that Nahida herself acknowledged that she intended to refer to sterilization, not abortion. And except that you were apparently one of the very few people who interpreted the second part of the quoted statement as she intended, rather than as a general characterization of the fight for abortion rights. So, no.

  86. Then I saw a bunch of people miss this point really hard,

    I don’t think anybody missed it.

  87. I suppose that acting on an adoption preference for a boy or a girl would be reprehensible and make the adoptive parents morally unfit too, at least under your theory.

    I don’t buy the “I’m personally repulsed but wouldn’t make it illegal” line anymore. It’s pretty much Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage. The whole point is to guilt people out of choices which are none of your business. There are plenty of people who think that having an abortion to finish college sooner or achieve some financial goal is reprehensible and morally unfit, but “of course” they would never make it illegal.

    Wanting to have a girl to give an existing daughter a sister (in addition to her existing two brothers) and acting on it is more morally reprehensible than having an abortion for career advancement? At the very least, I think reasonable people could differ. And they certainly could differ on whether the belief in or rejection of some abstruse “immutable differences” theory is a valid criteria for judging moral worth or parenting fitness.

  88. FTR, I don’t know what pilpul means.

    Sorry; I thought the term was generally known in English (because otherwise, I wouldn’t know what it means myself, given that I never studied Hebrew). From Wikipedia:

    The Hebrew term pilpul (Hebrew: פלפול, from “pepper,” loosely meaning “sharp analysis”) refers to a method of studying the Talmud through intense textual analysis in attempts to either explain conceptual differences between various halakhic rulings or to reconcile any apparent contradictions presented from various readings of different texts. Pilpul has entered English as a colloquialism used by some to indicate extreme disputation or casuistic hairsplitting.

  89. Look. I don’t actually generally support criminalising speech either. But the USian insistence that anyone drawing a legal line of unacceptable speech at a place other than the US’s practice of nearly absolute protection of speech is the worst ever (which, just saying, people from the US do all the damn time), because woe betide anyone come from a nation where free speech rights don’t necessarily trump other rights is deeply frustrating.

    And when you tack on things like,

    “Your rights are not violated when other people say things, even when what they’re saying is totally, awfully, indefensibly bigoted”

    I’m going to get pretty cynical and sarcastic, because speech can totally violate people’s rights. Women having to put up with street harassment? Queer youth having to deal with constant heterosexist bigotry and bullying in school? Muslim women who wear headscarves having to put up with racist abuse every time they leave the house? Are having their rights to access public space/education impacted on. And given that some of these things come with massively increased rates of self-harm and suicide, yeah, I’m going to consider them violent.

  90. I see two historical references here.

    1) WOC have historically been encouraged to abort their children.
    2) During the fight for abortion rights in the US, the relatively more privileged white women fought for abortion rights for themselves while ignoring the greater difficulties faced by WOC in creating and supporting their own families.

    Neither of these ideas seem particularly contentious.

    Well, any number of commenters took issue with the accuracy of number 1, so it seems to be a bit contentious. Among them, I include Nahida, who says she missspoke and meant to say ‘sterilization.’

  91. konkonsn: The place where you live is a town. I always define
    ‘suburbs’ as ‘dwellings and business units immediately outside of the city limits of a major metropolitan area. ‘ And yeah, I know a few aren’t rich and aren’t majority white, but that isn’t true of the majority of suburbs.

    Donna: I seriously doubt that suburban women- who troop into their local megachurch every Sunday- are interested in supporting abortion rights. They got theirs, after all, and they don’t need to think about other women who aren’t as fortunate as they are. I guarantee that the megachurches aren’t setting up shop in Podunk, Hell Michigan or Schnectady Wisconsin.
    Also, if it’s an area right next to the downtown, that isn’t a suburb. It’s a part of the city.

  92. And except that you were apparently one of the very few people who interpreted the second part of the quoted statement as she intended, rather than as a general characterization of the fight for abortion rights.

    I must be a special kind of genius to be the only one who understood it! Or, perhaps, more plausibly, you were just to quick to start with the corrections and calling out and should have spent more time thinking about it. Benefit of the doubt. Have you heard of it? It’s for people who have historically been great and valued members of a community, like Nahida!

    You’re always super quick to tell me that I’m wrong, or not as insightful as I should be or something.

  93. Wanting to have a girl to give an existing daughter a sister (in addition to her existing two brothers) and acting on it is more morally reprehensible than having an abortion for career advancement?

    If you think that it’s morally reprehensible to have an abortion because you don’t want to have kids and would like to continue with your career… well that sounds like some anti-feminist bullshit right there.

  94. But the USian insistence that anyone drawing a legal line of unacceptable speech at a place other than the US’s practice of nearly absolute protection of speech is the worst ever

    So I shouldn’t have any beliefs about what constitutes good public policy? In some fields, I actually do (*gasp*) believe the US gets things right. In other fields, I think other countries do things better.

    (which, just saying, people from the US do all the damn time), because woe betide anyone come from a nation where free speech rights don’t necessarily trump other rights is deeply frustrating.

    Yeah, and like I said, I don’t believe silencing other people is a right.

    Incidentally, you still haven’t answered my question. Can you define hate speech in such a way that

    a) It serves your objectives of criminalizing speech that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/religiously prejudiced/etc.

    b) Does not make me prosecutable for expressing the reasons for my atheism (i.e. the belief in God is silly) and furthermore express my belief that the world would be a better place without Islam (for the same reasons it would be a better place without any other religion).

    c) Would not include I Blame the Patriarchy or the SCUM Manifesto or a third of the feminist blogosphere

    Seriously, try to do it.

  95. perhaps, more plausibly, you were just to quick to start with the corrections and calling out and should have spent more time thinking about it. Benefit of the doubt.

    I may have been “quick,” but I wasn’t alone and wasn’t the first. And, yes, if I see any ambiguity at all, I do, very often, expressly give people the benefit of the doubt, instead of — as you did in this very case, by the way! — leaping to condemn people for saying something they didn’t. But I honestly saw no ambiguity in Nahida’s comment; it never crossed my mind — or, it seems, other people’s minds — that she meant what she meant, until she said so. Once she explained what she meant, the misunderstanding appeared to be cleared up to everyone’s satisfaction until you chose to revive it and act as if people were criticizing what Nahida intended to say rather than what she actually appeared to be saying.

    And no, I hardly single you out. If I disagree with you, I say so. Just like every single other person here does, with respect to everybody!

  96. I must be a special kind of genius to be the only one who understood it! Or, perhaps, more plausibly, you were just to quick to start with the corrections and calling out and should have spent more time thinking about it.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. What Nahida wrote was actually, factually wrong, add DonnaL was one of maybe twenty people who pointed that out. Nahida herself acknowledged what she said was wrong, and that she meant something else, followed by everyone saying “oh, OK, we get it now, all’s well that ends well.” Simple, agreeable, done with.

    Accusing DonnaL of some sort of personal animus towards you based on her (factually accurate!) criticism of another person’s post says more about your desire to pick a fight than the actual issue.

  97. Most people do not go through the ordeal of getting pregnant, staying pregnant for four to five months (until they can tell the sex of the fetus) and then terminating because they have two boys and they want a girl. And yes if a couple did that, I would say that’s pretty reprehensible.

    Agreed. But, while I still don’t think it will happen with any regularity, this technology shortens the timeline:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/health/10birth.html

  98. The place where you live is a town. I always define
    ‘suburbs’ as ‘dwellings and business units immediately outside of the city limits of a major metropolitan area. ‘ And yeah, I know a few aren’t rich and aren’t majority white, but that isn’t true of the majority of suburbs.

    What world do you live in?

    Seriously, most major, metropolitan cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, etc) come with a very high cost of living. Thus making it extremely difficult for all but the very wealthy to live there. Thus leading most people to live outside said city limits in order to still be able to afford a roof over their head, food on the table, clothes on their back, and so on.

    The insistence that only bland, boring, wealthy, insular people live in the suburbs is so ridiculously sheltered and classist as to be almost laughable.

  99. I am having a sad because I’m not sure how I suddenly became a social conservative or if I am hallucinating the trees and mountains. Very confusing… Oh wait, I live in reality and not in someone else’s fantasy world.

  100. I’d also like to raise my hand as a suburban-living vehemently pro-choice and involved progressive. And someone who likes and regularly eats spicey food within the confines of purgatory. I seriously doubt that the person who seriously doubts that there are pro-choice people in the suburbs has any clue of what she or he is talking about. We also have no megachurches.

  101. I’m going to continue the suburbs derail in part because population demographics happens to be a pet interest of mine. I agree that politicalguineapig engaged in some hamfisted stereotyping and pretty broad generalizing. It is true, however, that suburbs are richer, whiter, and more conservative than big cities. . .even though there are all sorts of exceptions to that, too.

    @lolagirl

    Seriously, most major, metropolitan cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, etc) come with a very high cost of living. Thus making it extremely difficult for all but the very wealthy to live there. Thus leading most people to live outside said city limits in order to still be able to afford a roof over their head, food on the table, clothes on their back, and so on.

    This sounds plausible, but it isn’t actually true. The suburbs of big cities are richer than the big cities themselves. Take, for example, Los Angeles. According to the 2010 Census*, the city of L.A. has a median household income of $48,610. Its major suburban counties? Orange County has a median household income of $70,727; Riverside County is at $53,981; San Bernardino County is at $52,270; Ventura County is at $71,418.

    New York City has a median household income right around L.A. at $48,631. The two suburban Long Island counties are much higher: Suffolk at $81,235 and Nassau at $90,294. Due north of NYC, Westchester County is at $76,993. Rockland County is at $79,798. And so on.

    Yes, there’s been a lot of gentrification recently in big cities with poor people pushed out of their old neighborhoods. That’s a really, really big problem. But there’s still way more poor people in Watts than Irvine, way more poor people in the Bronx than Yonkers. So, lolagirl, your broad generalizations may be less inflammatory than PGP’s, but they are more inaccurate. And I’m not just trying to nitpick here. . .I hear sentiments like yours a lot and I believe they (unintentionally) erase urban poverty, make it sound like a few rich people in condos=all urban dwellers, and center the plight of still economically oppressed, but comparitively more affluent (and whiter) people in the suburbs.

    *Source: 2010 Census by way of Wikipedia (for the city information) and http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/unemployment/ (for the county information).

  102. Seriously, most major, metropolitan cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, Boston, etc) come with a very high cost of living. Thus making it extremely difficult for all but the very wealthy to live there. Thus leading most people to live outside said city limits in order to still be able to afford a roof over their head, food on the table, clothes on their back, and so on.

    This sounds plausible, but it isn’t actually true. The suburbs of big cities are richer than the big cities themselves. Take, for example, Los Angeles. According to the 2010 Census*, the city of L.A. has a median household income of $48,610. Its major suburban counties? Orange County has a median household income of $70,727; Riverside County is at $53,981; San Bernardino County is at $52,270; Ventura County is at $71,418.

    New York City has a median household income right around L.A. at $48,631. The two suburban Long Island counties are much higher: Suffolk at $81,235 and Nassau at $90,294. Due north of NYC, Westchester County is at $76,993. Rockland County is at $79,798. And so on.

    If her theory is wrong then how do you account for the fact that New York County (Manhattan i.e. the big city,) has double the median income of Bronx County?

  103. I would hope to God that even if you did IVF for no other reason than to get a child of a particular sex, you would at least have the good sense to never tell them that you did that. But that may be my naivete showing.

    Unfortunately, at least some parents who’ve done sex-selection IVF definitely tell their kids. Some don’t. but wish they could (“If only this weren’t so stigmatized!”), and some haven’t made up their minds about what they will or won’t tell the kid in the future.

  104. Lolagirl: I am actually pretty familiar with the suburbs-or at least those in MN. Most of them are pretty wealthy- I can think of only one that isn’t. I’m a city-dweller for life, and I’ve never met anyone who was rich.

    Roro80: How do you find these resturants you speak of? Or do have someone cook at home? I occasionally visit the suburbs, and from what I’ve seen the dining options are a sea o’ chains.

  105. So, lolagirl, your broad generalizations may be less inflammatory than PGP’s, but they are more inaccurate. And I’m not just trying to nitpick here. . .I hear sentiments like yours a lot and I believe they (unintentionally) erase urban poverty, make it sound like a few rich people in condos=all urban dwellers, and center the plight of still economically oppressed, but comparitively more affluent (and whiter) people in the suburbs.

    I’m somewhat skeptical of quoting average incomes, because the 1%ers who live in those areas may very well be throwing off the stats in question. Unfortunately, they aren’t broken down further by income ranges to give a more accurate picture of what is going on there. It also doesn’t address my point that the cost of living in the suburbs is often significantly less than the city proper, especially where housing prices are concerned.

    At least here in the Chicago area, Cook County comprises both the entire city as well as a large swath of suburbia as well. Looking at the average income on that chart you linked isn’t going to give an accurate picture of what is going on there when the range is from Calumet City to Winnetka, Cicero to Evanston and so on.

    And none of that addresses the flat out elitism and classism of the OP’s insistence that all suburban dwellers are wealthy, boring, bland, and politically conservative.

  106. I was raised by liberal feminist parents in a suburb and grew up to work in abortion care (I do this work up to today). I don’t know if one can have better pro-choice cred than I do, and I continue to live in the same suburb.

    I know it’s not just me and my family that are liberal because our neighborhood is represented in the state Senate and House by liberal Democrats and has been for decades.

    I find this entire discussion to be very bizarre.

  107. Having taken the time to be less frustrated, I’m going to apologise for the snideness earlier. Spending the weekend in constant discussions with forced birthers has obviously raised my base level of snark.

  108. I’m somewhat skeptical of quoting average incomes, because the 1%ers who live in those areas may very well be throwing off the stats in question.

    No, that would only happen if you looked at mean household income. If you look at median household income, which is what I cited, then the effect of the 1%-ers is neglible because, well, they only make up 1% of the population. Besides, even if you did factor in the 1%-ers, it would have an opposite effect of what you are implying. The very, very wealthy actually are more likely to congregate inside the city limits of big cities nowadays (Lakeshore Drive in Chicago, the Upper East Side in Manhattan, etc.) whereas suburbs are more of a haven for the upper middle class.

    It also doesn’t address my point that the cost of living in the suburbs is often significantly less than the city proper, especially where housing prices are concerned.

    Housing prices may indeed generally be lower in the suburbs. But this is mainly a concern for people who are affluent enough to afford their own home. There are more rental properties in cities, and there is also more government-subsidized low-income housing. Also, living in the suburbs means not being able to use urban-based public transportation systems and, if one can afford a car, having to pay more on gas to get around given the lower density of suburban development. Infrastructure that poor people might rely on like food banks, public health clinics, libraries, the VA, the unemployment office, etc. are more likely to be located and/or easily accessible in big cities also.

    I mean, there’s rich people and there’s poor people pretty much everywhere. I mainly objected to what you were saying because it seemed to center the lives of the super-rich yuppies who, in fact, are taking over a few urban neighborhoods here and there. You seemed to imply that these folks are the main people who live in big cities, when, of course, they are actually a tiny minority. And you were also seeming to implicitly reference (maybe I was just imagining this) a certain meme among resentful, middle-class white flighters who move to suburbs to save money on property taxes and so on. The reality is, though, that the average person in the suburbs is richer, whiter, and more conservative than the average person in the big city. That’s just the empirical fact, and if you don’t believe me, I’d be willing to hunt down more links.

    And none of that addresses the flat out elitism and classism of the OP’s insistence that all suburban dwellers are wealthy, boring, bland, and politically conservative.

    Well, I did say the politicalguineapig was engaging in generalizations and hamfisted stereotyping. Not sure how she was being “elitist” or “classist” though. Maybe culturally elitist a la John Kerry or reverse classist like the progressive income tax? I’m being snarky, of course, but I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. Do you know what politicalguineapig’s class background is?

  109. political guinea pig, you have no idea what you’re talking about. None. You’ve made up some definitions in your mind, and have decided what “kinds” of people live in your fantasy world. And what megachurches they attend.

    The height of narcissism and arrogance. But why should you care? As long as all the cities in the U.S. carry the Democratic vote, amirite? Because no Republicans or conservatives live in cities.

    Your grand proclamations don’t even make mathematical sense.

  110. It also doesn’t address my point that the cost of living in the suburbs is often significantly less than the city proper, especially where housing prices are concerned.

    I’m not convinced that it’s necessarily cheaper rather than just a matter of what you get for your money. I could pay the same rent I pay here in Manhattan elsewhere and get a two-bedroom apartment with a parking space and access to a gym and a dishwasher and washer/dryer in the apartment…but then I’m somewhere else. Or I could pay what I pay and get a 12X17 studio without a separate kitchen and get to be in Manhattan.

    There have always been desperately poor people as well as middle-class people in NYC, and I can guarantee you that the people living in many of the suburbs are hugely rich (because I met them when I was at college)–the ones from Mamoroneck, Westchester, places like that. The kids I teach often come from suburbs out on Long Island, and with the exception of the Five Towns, they’re not wealthy at all–but they do have a different standard of living than I did or expected when I was their age.

    But I can offer testimony, as somebody who grew up across the street from one set of housing projects and three blocks away from another set, that there are very, very poor people in NYC, not only in the outer boroughs, either.

    1. Alright, I’m convinced that Political Guineapig is very elaborate performance art. She does this a lot, and routinely derails threads with her asinine theories. I will simply say that your humble blogger grew up in the suburbs, and learned her feminism there.

      Now can we move on to something actually worth discussing?

  111. Doesn’t all this back and forth about cities and suburbs merely go to show that you can’t really generalize about these things?

  112. amblingalong and chiara, there are differing views out there in the world when it comes to freedom of speech and whether that freedom trumps all others.

    amblingalong you ask, rhetorically, I think for us to define ‘hate speech’ in such a way that would ensure peoples’ freedoms aren’t trodden on too badly. I paraphrase, I know. But, I hope it’s a an accurate enough paraphrase.

    Well, here’s an example from Australia. It’s from Part 111 Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. It says:

    (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
    (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person, or a group of people; and
    (b the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

    An act is taken not to be done in private if it:

    (a) causes words, sounds, or images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
    (b) is done in a public place or
    (c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

    This is a controversial piece of legislation. But, people have been taken to court and successfully sued for ‘hate speech’. You may want to look up Eatock vs Bolt for a recent and high profile case.

    Australia is hardly free fromm prejudices of all kinds. But, you can write an act that proscribes ‘hate speech’. It can work successfully and you can still be a democracy with freedom of speech. What it does do, is protect people from bullies.

  113. Although, strictly speaking, we don’t have an explicit right to free speech in Australia. Some high court judgements have referred to a ‘implicit’ right in the constitution, but others haven’t.

    1. That’s true, thinksnake. But, I don’t think people feel terribly hamstrung by this, on an everyday basis.

  114. I’m not convinced that it’s necessarily cheaper rather than just a matter of what you get for your money. I could pay the same rent I pay here in Manhattan elsewhere and get a two-bedroom apartment with a parking space and access to a gym and a dishwasher and washer/dryer in the apartment…but then I’m somewhere else. Or I could pay what I pay and get a 12X17 studio without a separate kitchen and get to be in Manhattan.

    This is a weird sort of hair splitting that doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. A 600 sf apartment in Manhattan can cost upwards of $2,000 a month, whereas in places like Long Island or New Jersey once can much more easily find an apartment with up to double that square footage (or half the rent for a 500 sf place) for that kind of price. Chicago housing costs aren’t nearly as inflated as NYC, but the reality is still that one can generally move 10 miles outside the city center and pay half as much for their housing costs. That may not be a big deal to you, but it is for plenty of others (especially for those who have children and actually do need the additional floor space.)

    And you’re flippant finish about getting to live in Manhattan(!!!) is the sort of elitism I was referring to in my earlier comment. It’s the implication that the bridge and tunnel crowd/suburbanites are a bunch of rich, boring, sheeple losers, and worse yet, Republicans. It’s the painting with a broad, sweeping brush that is grating so much in this discussion.

  115. This is a weird sort of hair splitting that doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense.

    It does, though. You can raise a family in New York City for what you can raise a family in the suburbs (particularly if you’re in Westchester); you just have a different way of living; it certainly counters your idea that mostly only rich people can afford the cities. I grew up sharing a room with my sister in a two-bedroom apartment in a neighborhood that was lousy and is now chi-chi with no dishwasher and very little closet space etc., but my family exists, as do all the families of the kids I grew up with, almost none of whom were rich (the few who I thought were rich at the time paled in comparison to the kids from out of town I met in college).

    And you’re flippant finish about getting to live in Manhattan(!!!) is the sort of elitism I was referring to in my earlier comment. It’s the implication that the bridge and tunnel crowd/suburbanites are a bunch of rich, boring, sheeple losers, and worse yet, Republicans.

    That’s a whole lot to read into a completely non-flippant comment about the kind of life I, personally, in that particular example, prefer to have, particularly because the only example of a positive trade-off I made was regarding the suburbs (more space and amenities). To pretend there aren’t trade-offs to living in the city or the suburbs is absurd. I implied nothing about people who live in the suburbs except that having more space and private amenities is probably more important to them than it is to me. I grew up in Manhattan, I’ve lived in other places, I love it here, and nothing compares to it for me. There’s a lot to be said for living here and raising a family here, and I do get sick of hearing people say “Oh, the city is great, but you could never have kids here.” In my experience, lots of NYC suburbanites are quite rich, and I’ll stand by that–but as to boring, sheeple losers and Republicans…that’s all coming from you. And Politicalguineapig, of course.

  116. Australia is hardly free from prejudices of all kinds. But, you can write an act that proscribes ‘hate speech’. It can work successfully and you can still be a democracy with freedom of speech. What it does do, is protect people from bullies.

    Yeah, except that under that law a ton of social-justice blogs could be taken down for things they say about white privilege.

    (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person, or a group of people; and

    Saying “I’m so tired of the way white people act” is reasonably likely to insult someone, and

    (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

    Yep. Also potentially prosecutable; complaining about the attitudes of Americans (an ‘insult’ based on national origin, which is reasonably certain to offend someone), or comments made here on Feministe by Native Americans about white Americans being ‘colonizers.’ For that matter, either side of a conversation about affirmative action could probably accuse the other of being insulting based on race and win, depending on the political leanings of whoever was on the court (he said affirmative action was necessary to counteract the advantages white people have in the educational system, which made me feel insulted because I don’t believe I have those advantages). Not saying those argument’s are correct (obviously) but that they could plausibly be successful under such a law.

    The thing is, it’s pretty much impossible to ban making people feel insulted about race and not endanger the ability of people to talk about race. A law like that can be used to silence feminists or social justice advocates almost as easily as racists, and has been used as a political weapon way to often for me to think it’s a good idea.

  117. I have no idea why my response went into mod. I did not quote excessively or even swear!

    The short version, Lolagirl, is that I think you’re reading a lot into what I said, and it is indeed possible for non-rich families to live in cities.

  118. Imagine being someone’s $20,000 (or $40,000, or $60,000) baby girl or baby boy, and having to come out to your parents as trans!

    I would hope to God that even if you did IVF for no other reason than to get a child of a particular sex, you would at least have the good sense to never tell them that you did that. But that may be my naivete showing.

    My friend and her sister were adopted from Korea, and their parents often used the “You cost us $15,000, you should be grateful!” line when they were growing up. I can only imagine what would be used against a trans* child in this particular case (“We paid $40,000 for a girl, now be one!”).

  119. I would also point out, when comparing costs of living, that in NYC (I can’t speak for any of the other cities in play), as compared to its suburbs, you don’t need a car, particularly in Manhattan. I don’t think you save any money from that, because it will of course get eaten up in rent and other such things, but it’s not an insignificant financial issue, either.

  120. I’m sorry. . .I know Jill tried to stop the “suburbs” derail, but what you are saying is really starting to grate on me Lolagirl. I’ve very sorry that politicalguineapig said some mean things about suburbanites, but people in the suburbs are in no way a marginalized population. That is just fucking ridiculous. Basically, this is a “what about teh men?!” type argument you are advancing.

    Compared to both urban and rural people, people in the suburbs are more likely to be white. They are less likely to live in poverty. Compared to urban people, they are more likely to be Christian, straight, and cisgender. Surbanities make almost 50% of the U.S. population. Making fun of surbanities for being “bland” is like making fun of white people for liking mayonaisse. Give it up. It’s not a real problem, and the poverty and racism you are obscuring through your inaccurate analysis of urban/suburban dynamics are real problems.

  121. Li@106 exactly.

    As for the disingenuous assertions that “mah freedom to say I don’t believe in god will be trampled if you criminalise verbal abuse of minorities!”

    AA – can’t you see the difference between a system or regime, and a person? Has Richard Dawkins been put in prison, or fined? No. Should the person who blanketed his neighbourhood with posters and stickers saying “HOMOSEXUAL FREE ZONE”, and distributing material calling for GLBT people to be beheaded in the streets for spreading AIDS and raping children? Yes.

    I’ve posted the definitions once already. Amerisplain all you want about the first amendment, I don’t care.

    I’d rather live somewhere where I can’t be cornered by someone telling me that I’m an abomination in the eyes of their god, and should be killed. I’m glad queer children can go to school, in a bus that doesn’t have advertising saying that Jesus can cure their affliction. I love that nobody has the right to abuse a woman because of her hijab, or a trans woman, and use it as a reason to deny her rights.

    If that makes me some sort of fascist in your eyes, I don’t care.

  122. Also, Lolagirl, you know what? Right back at you. Your wrongheaded assumption that my comment about getting to live in Manhattan–which is apparently so inherently absurd to you as to require multiple exclamation points–was some kind of flippant one-liner as opposed to an assessment of a decision I actually, you know, made a few years ago is rather obnoxious. People–even middle-class and poor people–do live in Manhattan; children grow up here; as a result, many of us are from here. Your inability to imagine to imagine somebody having genuine affection for the city and deciding that she’d rather live in a small studio that gets no light over a street that trucks rumble through all night in Manhattan rather than a huge, light-filled, one-bedroom apartment with an eat-in kitchen and a walk-in closet in Queens (not a suburb, of course, but a similar choice with a somewhat smaller differential) 20 minutes from the nearest subway station because she has different priorities than you does not mean that I don’t exist, or that I hold your priorities in contempt. I can understand that people who are not me want different things in life, and that that has nothing to do with me or my preferences. Why is that difficult for you?

  123. @Fine: I have absolutely no competence in Australian law, but as written that sounds extremely bad.

    “…the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people” is ridiculously wide, and the “offend” part would cover a lot of valuable speech.

    Since I would guess Australian jurisprudence is at least vaguely reasonable the law should probably not be interpreted literally, but I think it illustrates the problem with phrasing a good hate speech law.

  124. people in the suburbs are in no way a marginalized population.

    Except that there are marginalized populations who live in suburbs. When you paint them all as privileged, wealthy, white, and soulless, you erase the experiences of all the suburban areas that are not those things.

    If someone writes “god, all men have it so easy… men are boring and soulless and none of them ever experience oppression,” it’s not a ‘what about the menz’ argument to respond “actually, some men are gay/black/poor/trans*/atheist/queer, and deal with oppression every day. Intersectionality is a great word and a key concept. It applies here.

  125. Except that’s not what Lolagirl is doing. She’s defending the honor of the suburbs by painting them as the home for the downtrodden, sneered upon by the uppity cultural (and also super-rich) elites of the cities. This would be like pointing out men can be oppressed, too, by talking about how great women have it.

  126. Personally, I think it’s a Minnesota thing. politicalguineapig, the other great suburb-hater in my life (a guy who boycotted an album solely because it was called ‘The Suburbs’, and voted himself ‘least likely to ever live in a suburb’), and Sinclair Lewis are all from Minnesota. QED. Let’s stereotypes Minnesotans instead! 😉

    And while I can never quite understand the kind of suburb that comfortably reelects Michelle Bachmann, I’m sure these people aren’t considering Prince George’s County, Maryland 😉

  127. LotusBecca – I think you are being a bit excessive here about what Lolagirl actually said, rather then what you read in to it. Saying that something grates with you is not at all a whataboutthemenz argument/ denying white privilege.

    Why I think Lolagirl is kicking against the dull suburbs land of the Republican soccermom bit is that it fosters a stereotype of mothers being intellectually dull/socially unaware and all other types of judgement. Is that the worst stereotype/prejudice in the world? No, far from it. But it’s bloody annoying all the same.

  128. My friend and her sister were adopted from Korea, and their parents often used the “You cost us $15,000, you should be grateful!” line when they were growing up.

    Wow. On the one hand, someone should knock those parents upside the head. Though I suppose that would be the equivalent of “I brought you into this world…” for non-biological parents (not that I find that phase much better).

    Not to mention the fact that two births plus prenatal care could conceivably set you back that much if you don’t have insurance, so it’s not like those parents necessarily paid significantly more than other families with two kids. But of course, a mom or dad who totaled up all their pregnancy-related expenses for the purpose of throwing it in their kid’s face would rightly be judged as very disturbed. So…yeah…wow.

  129. Sadly, I have known parents who have thrown the cost of dental/orthodontic care in the face of their grown children.

  130. I’d rather live somewhere where I can’t be cornered by someone telling me that I’m an abomination in the eyes of their god, and should be killed.

    Fortunately, that includes the US. You’re not actually allowed to corner people and prevent them from walking away.

    I’m glad queer children can go to school, in a bus that doesn’t have advertising saying that Jesus can cure their affliction.

    Also true in the US, since the 1st Amendment prohibits religious propaganda at schools.

    As for the disingenuous assertions that “mah freedom to say I don’t believe in god will be trampled if you criminalise verbal abuse of minorities!” AA – can’t you see the difference between a system or regime, and a person?

    So you’re claiming that hate crimes laws are enforced only against organizations, never individuals? You’re contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences.

    There’s nothing disingenuous about saying that a lot of my beliefs about religion are likely to offend or insult members of religious minorities. Seriously, if you took the Australian law above and replaced ‘ethnic minority’ with ‘religious minority,’ then yes, simply expressing my views would be enough to make me prosecutable.

    The only way around these issues is to just selectively enforce those laws against people the establishment considers particularly outside the norm. Which is pretty obviously problematic.

  131. To expand; you keep bringing up abuse of people wearing a hijab. As I’m sure you know, Muslim is not a race; only a minority of Muslim women are Arabs. Clearly, the laws you support must criminalize ‘offending or insulting’ religious minorities, not just ethnic/racial ones.

    So tell me, do you think many Muslims are going to be insulted or offended when PZ Myers writes that their beliefs are absurd fairy tales without which the world would be much improved?

  132. Oh, and any feminist who writes a blog post about the patriarchal roots of headscarf wearing is probably going to be criminally liable too. Just a thought.

  133. I have absolutely no competence in Australian law

    Pretty much.

    It is difficult enough under Australian racial vilification law to successfully bring a case against douchebag public racists. The number of potential defenses under the law are so extensive so as to mean that Andrew Bolt mainly got caught up in them because he made up a bunch of things he knew to be untrue about various specific Aboriginal activists supposedly pretending to be Aboriginal when they actually had white parents. Even having been found to have committed racial vilification, his ‘punishment’ was to be ordered to twice publish an apology and retraction and not to republish the offending article. The people claiming that our laws ban useful anti-racist speech don’t know shit about our legal system or legal culture.

  134. Amblingalong, not that I don’t take legal opinions by USians who have neither read the full relevant legislation nor have any knowledge of Australian jurisprudence seriously, but..

    Wait no you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Seriously USians, stop thinking you’re somehow experts on the legal cultures of the rest of the world. Certainly don’t do it without actually taking some time to do the damn background research.

  135. FFS, talk about projecting non-existent motivations onto people who happen to disagree with you.

    This isn’t some sort of Not my Nigel derail on my part, I just happen to not see things in such stark terms as some other posters here seem to do. One is going to find all sorts, rich to poor, conservative to liberal, and a wide range in between, both in the city proper and in the suburbs. That’s the entire freaking point. If others weren’t intending to draw such a bright line between the cities and suburbs then I will only apologize if I misinterpreted or misunderstood (politicalguineapig notwithstanding.)

    And I totally get the preffering to live in the city over the suburbs thing, if we could afford it, we would still be doing it. The reality is that everything from housing to food to gas and even insurance costs do decrease substantially outside the city limits. All the budget stretching and making do doesn’t change the bottom line that life, and kids especially, cost lots of money.

    I also grew up in a blue collar, working class, inner ring, and racially diverse south side suburb, so my frame of reference is (apparently) quite different from some of the other commenters here.

  136. Amblingalong, not that I don’t take legal opinions by USians who have neither read the full relevant legislation nor have any knowledge of Australian jurisprudence seriously, but..

    Wait no you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I posted specifically about the text and language posted above, which was absurdly badly written. You’ve done a bang-up job of avoiding the actual points about the problems with criminalizing expression, though, so kudos for that.

    Seriously USians, stop thinking you’re somehow experts on the legal cultures of the rest of the world. Certainly don’t do it without actually taking some time to do the damn background research.

    Ah, the classic “we disagree, therefore you’re ignorant of the topic” approach. I don’t know anything about you or your knowledge of US/Canadian/Australian law, and you know exactly as much about me.

    his ‘punishment’ was to be ordered to twice publish an apology and retraction and not to republish the offending article.

    Given the scenario you described, he’d actually be liable under US libel law, under which the civil penalties would likely be significantly harsher.

  137. Actually, I can infer you don’t know shit about our law because you keep talking about “criminalising” and “criminally liable” with reference to it. Since our racial vilification laws are contained in our Racial Discrimination act, which is civil legislation, that doesn’t bode well for your Australian legal knowledge now, does it?

    You’re not ignorant because we disagree, you’re ignorant because you keep making arguments based on an ignorance of Australian law.

  138. Actually, I can infer you don’t know shit about our law because you keep talking about “criminalising” and “criminally liable” with reference to it. Since our racial vilification laws are contained in our Racial Discrimination act, which is civil legislation, that doesn’t bode well for your Australian legal knowledge now, does it?

    You’re not ignorant because we disagree, you’re ignorant because you keep making arguments based on an ignorance of Australian law.

    You are dead wrong. This is hilarious- after all that, you know less about your legal system than I do? Amazing.

    New South Wales, South Australia, the ACT, Queensland and Victoria all have civil and criminal racial vilification laws. Western Australia has criminal but no civil provisions. The only state in which you wouldn’t be criminally liable for racial villification is Tasmania, which has civil but no criminal provisions.

    Christ, that’s funny.

  139. Incidentally, I suppose being sued for my religious beliefs is slightly less offensive than being jailed for them, but it’s still not exactly ideal, and you’re still avoiding the question of how a law that made it actionable to offend someone because of their religion wouldn’t permit exactly that.

  140. Except that you’ve already said you don’t have a problem with criminalising threats of violence, which, strangely enough (along with incitement), are the substance of those anti-vilification provisions that fall under criminal law.

    Since we’ve been talking vilification that falls outside of those threats of violence, yes, it’s noteworthy that the appropriate legislation is civil and not criminal.

  141. For those playing along at home, here are the appropriate provisions in NSW:

    20C Racial Vvilification unlawful

    (1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group.

    (2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:

    (a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or

    (b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005 or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or

    (c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

    20D Offence of serious racial vilification

    (1) A person shall not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group by means which include:

    (a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or

    (b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.

    Maximum penalty:

    In the case of an individual—50 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

    In the case of a corporation—100 penalty units.

    (2) A person shall not be prosecuted for an offence under this section unless the Attorney General has consented to the prosecution.

  142. Please continue telling us how the civil legislation we were initially discussion is totally actually criminal because, there is separate legislation that criminalises a meaningfully different form of vilification?

  143. And hey, sorry for thinking that you whining about a quoted piece of Federal legislation criminalising offending people meant you were actually talking about the quoted piece of legislation (which, as we’ve covered, civil) and not various state statutes criminalising completely different behaviour.

  144. The question about sex-selective abortions kind of reminds me of the discussion of dating that has happened a few times here, where people pointed out that you could choose to not date someone for whatever reason you wanted since no one had a right to a relationship with you, but some reasons (like if you refused to date black people) are still worthy of contempt. Similarly, people should be able to get abortions for whatever reason they want–it’s their body–but if they’re getting an abortion because they don’t want a girl, I’m going to think they’re an asshole.

  145. Which puts doctors in a position of refusing to perform abortions if they know — or reasonably believe, or should have known — that the patient is having the abortion because they want a child of a particular sex.

    Which brings me to another point (now that the extended derail seems to be over). What stops a racist doctor from forcing Asian women through hoops for the lolz because you know how those women are? Or to outright deny them services, or humiliate them in the process of providing them with services? Did these sacks of noxious vile just legalise a particularly horrific form of racism?

    (And yes, it is in fact possible to be racist without wanting to force women to abort – I can think offhand of many, many cases where people are denied services that would prevent population control just because of racism. Witness: crackdowns on birth control.)

  146. Which brings me to another point (now that the extended derail seems to be over). What stops a racist doctor from forcing Asian women through hoops for the lolz because you know how those women are? Or to outright deny them services, or humiliate them in the process of providing them with services? Did these sacks of noxious vile just legalise a particularly horrific form of racism?

    WRT the docs, you are going to find assholes everywhere, and there are doubtless AB docs that have been assholes who have exercised shitty and bigoted judgement. But, because here in the US docs are literally putting their lives on the line to provide services, they are pretty committed to making sure that women get the abortions that they requested, as opposed to having them jump through extra hoops to get them. The smoother the process for a woman to get a procedure done, the easier it is for the clinic and the doc. It was irritating enough to set up the proper paperwork for parental notification for a minor at our clinic, I can’t imagine what it must have been like for a place with far more restrictions.

    If anything, racist and classist dickery would involve using WOC’s and poor womens’ bodies to experiment with new methods of birth control than making abortions trickier for them to get. For example, young women on public assistance could get Norplant, a hormonal sort of BC that was inserted into a woman’s arm. If memory served, it lasted for a few years) inserted for free, but when they would experience side effects that they found untenable, they would have to pay for the removal. And side effects were pretty common for Norplant. My friend, who was half Native American, had constant menstrual bleeding with hers, and she couldn’t get it out without paying at least 200 bucks. And this was about 20 years ago. When they first started testing on human subjects for the birth control pill, they did it Puerto Rico. (They did trials of the effects of the hormones on infertility patients previously) It’s been POC’s bodies that have been what we’ve used as test subjects, that and sterilization have been how we have expressed racism surrounding reproductive health, not abortion.

  147. It’s been POC’s bodies that have been what we’ve used as test subjects, that and sterilization have been how we have expressed racism surrounding reproductive health, not abortion.

    *nods* All right, makes sense. I’m from India, where obviously population growth isn’t seen as that big a deal, and where abortions – even the legal lifesaving ones! – are often an excuse to deal out vast quantities of bullshit to innocent women, so it was one of the places my brain went. Different cultural contexts and all.

  148. *nods* All right, makes sense. I’m from India, where obviously population growth isn’t seen as that big a deal, and where abortions – even the legal lifesaving ones! – are often an excuse to deal out vast quantities of bullshit to innocent women, so it was one of the places my brain went. Different cultural contexts and all.

    Right, it makes sense. A differing cultural context is often mind-boggling to consider. My current smooching partner lives in the UK, and there are lots of things that we find baffling about each others’ countries. (They wait in literal lines for the bus, even well before it gets there. What the hell is up with that?? And he thinks it’s freakish that dental care is separate from medical care.)

    As far as other fucked up things about reproductive experimentation, it wasn’t even just women’s bodies that were used. Starting in the early thirties, the US Public Health Service had an experiment in Alabama where they observed men starting in infected with syphilis, never telling them they had it, nor treating them for it, in order to determine the long term effects of the disease. They did this in exchange for free medical care, except for actually curing the syphilis. Or any of the effects the disease might have on those that catch the disease from those men, including their children who could get it in utero from an infected mother. All of the test subjects were poor African American men, and this experiment stopped in 1972, when its existence was leaked to the press. And I think it was President Clinton who finally got around to apologizing for it. So, yeah. POC’s bodies have been fair game for a while, and I still don’t trust our government about all of that, let along pharmaceutical companies, and when I worked at the clinic, we dealt with reps all the time.

  149. They wait in literal lines for the bus, even well before it gets there. What the hell is up with that??

    It’s a lifesaver in India, lol. Mumbai’s fairly strict about line rules, which made me really happy after the rural areas’ general tendency to PILE ON FAST FAST FAST, which usually meant risking leaving a bag or shoe behind. Or possibly a small child.

  150. Yes, I’m sorry. I was thinking of abortion also being final, if it’s continuously, systematically forced on WOC the way I described that I’ve heard men suggest it be employed.

    And I also don’t think this is the first time in history such a suggestion has made its way into conversation.

    Because you’re right, for the women who were actually forced to have those abortions, they were pretty final. Ask them if a subsequent child replaced the pregnancy that was forcibly ripped from their wombs let’s see how nice and cozy that conversation gets. Seriously.

    Also, right now there are places that are offering FREE sterilization procedures specifically to impoverished black women. In many inner city areas, getting a free or cheap abortion is not that difficult at least not in D.C. BUT getting a scholarship is HELL, getting a job is hell, getting people to not dismiss a black woman with a child as some idiot who didn’t “take advantage” of her reproductive choices is HELL.

    This is going on while white women are fighting tooth and nail for abortion rights and struggle to find a doctor they can PAY to provide permanent birth control.

    BUT even still; the sex selection issue:

    Fetuses are not babies. So reasons behind the aborton are moot when it comes to ethics. How is it more ethical to abort because of sex as opposed to bad timing? The sex of the fetus is moot because gender expectations are bullshit and for those not built on gender expectations but medical reasons (certain diseases are more prominent in boys than girls) they are perfectly valid. Even if it doesn’t fall into one of the two categories, the wants and needs of the pregnant person is the only ethical consideration.

  151. It’s a lifesaver in India, lol. Mumbai’s fairly strict about line rules, which made me really happy after the rural areas’ general tendency to PILE ON FAST FAST FAST, which usually meant risking leaving a bag or shoe behind. Or possibly a small child.

    Yeah, I figured it was to do with how crowded a city is, and people are going to be more possessive of their turn if you have to force your way onto a bus. But even in the cases of taking the university shuttle, where the driver would routinely have to leave passengers behind it because it gets that crowded, we still clump and don’t line up for the bus.

    But back on topic, I really don’t care why a woman chooses to have an abortion. It’s none of my business, even if she asks me what I think she should do. The most I can tell her is what I would do if I were pregnant in similar circumstances. And like others have echoed earlier, I would definitely prefer women having abortions for sex selection than newborn babies being murdered.

  152. Fetuses are not babies. So reasons behind the aborton are moot when it comes to ethics.

    Bull. While abortion on its own may be ethically neutral, it’s possible that it’s driven by bigoted reasoning. While we say that abortion is an important right and attempts like this to take it away are dangerous, we dont have to pretend like any possible reason for having an abortion is 100% OK and not sexist/racist/whatever.

    1. Fetuses are not babies. So reasons behind the aborton are moot when it comes to ethics.

      Why? Plenty of things are morally neutral, but the reasons behind doing them might be ethically problematic. Pretty much anything, actually. Writing is morally neutral. Writing for the purpose of inciting hatred is morally suspect and unethical. Why do we need to treat abortion like it’s a totally special different thing?

  153. Why? Plenty of things are morally neutral, but the reasons behind doing them might be ethically problematic. Pretty much anything, actually. Writing is morally neutral. Writing for the purpose of inciting hatred is morally suspect and unethical. Why do we need to treat abortion like it’s a totally special different thing?

    I think that if we take how abortion plays out in a grand scale in society, we can look at it in terms of ethics. But I think what we can’t lose in this discussion is that it is still a very personal decision that isn’t just based on morals, but is also based on health. Writing something doesn’t affect a woman’s body.

  154. Fetuses are not babies. So reasons behind the aborton are moot when it comes to ethics. How is it more ethical to abort because of sex as opposed to bad timing?

    It’s more ethical to abort because of gender than to kill an actual living baby. That doesn’t make sex-selective abortion not a misogynistic fucking thing to do.

    I really oughtn’t to be engaging you again after that clusterfuck of a thread, but I do have to point out: There is institutional misogyny going on here. Please keep that in mind when discussing SSA.

    Do you honestly think that people willing to abort a foetus won’t proceed to infanticide if the child’s born? I admire your optimism. I grew up in Tamil Nadu, though, so….I can’t share it. And also, don’t you think that a country/culture where 1/10 females don’t live through one year is misogynistic, and thus likely to be no party for living women?

    A little background.
    http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html
    http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2010/12/female-infanticide-in-india-2/

  155. Also, right now there are places that are offering FREE sterilization procedures specifically to impoverished black women. In many inner city areas, getting a free or cheap abortion is not that difficult at least not in D.C.

    Not evidence of racism by itself, necessarily. Poor people can get sterilisations/vasectomies at extremely low cost/free depending on their need and number of children. I support consensual sterilisation. Consensual sterilisation would in fact make a dent in abortion rates – how many people who get abortions do so because they can’t afford more kids? Or religious people who have genetic diseases they don’t want to transfer but wouldn’t consider getting an abortion for themselves? The sterilisation itself isn’t an issue, when freely undergone. Fuck, I WANT to be sterilised so in my late 30s nor with six kids under my belt (apparently the only two ways a woman can convince doctors in my country), so I can’t. I haven’t looked into it in Canada but I imagine it’s much the same.

    However, combine it with

    BUT getting a scholarship is HELL, getting a job is hell, getting people to not dismiss a black woman with a child as some idiot who didn’t “take advantage” of her reproductive choices is HELL.

    and yeah, there’s your systemic racism. Ugh, ugh, gross.

  156. I’m just gonna say this: if a woman wants to get an abortion, even for an incredibly stupid, shallow, narcissistic reason, there should be nothing to prevent her from getting one.

    Because think about it. If someone is willing to abort for such reasons, then clearly this is not the type of person who should raise a child in the first place. So people who think they’re being benevolent by restricting the requirements for an abortion would actually making things worse for the child instead of better.

    Of course, this really has nothing to do with sparing fetuses at the end of the day. It’s just another way to control women’s bodies, as usual.

  157. One more thing that the 246 misogynists who voted YES on PRENDA do NOT get: in the nations where sex-selective abortions are a problem (China and India) ultrasounds are banned and doctors can get prosecuted for performing them.

    How convenient for them to leave that detail out.

    The good folks at Feministe and I are on to them. I have given out two endorsements (to Jim Clyburn and Carolyn Maloney), but I am gonna help social media work extra hard to get rid of the 246 members of the House who betrayed American women – including the other five current members of South Carolina’s Congressional delegation – on November 6!

Comments are currently closed.