If you're at all involved in polyamory, you've probably heard about the court case in Canada that challenges its long-held anti-polygamy law on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally broad. They just finished with closing arguments, so perhaps we'll hear a ruling soon.
I think the case made against this law is pretty good. The harmful behavior that it's purportedly trying to prevent - child marriage, abuse, etc. - are already criminalized, so this law is redundant. Similarly, it makes no distinction between an egalitarian polyamorous relationship and an abusive patriarchal one. I'm sure this was intentional; I imagine the law, despite what is claimed now, was designed to prohibit non-monogamy for the sake of being non-monogamy.
It's easy to say non-monogamy is inherently bad when you're using non-secular morality. Can't really argue with, "God says so." However, the only basis for secular morality is the prevention of harm to self and others. And when you genuinely and vigorously apply secular morality to a lot of our laws governing personal behavior, as Canada seems to be doing a much better job of than the U.S., those laws start to fall apart.
I'm currently too cynical to expect the U.S. to develop a true separation of church and state; I don't think it ever existed, thanks to certain segments of the population who are convinced that a Christian theocracy is the only way to... um... actually, I'm not sure what they're trying to do. Win at life, maybe? Anyway, I think it'll be a long time before we are able to critically examine our laws with a truly secular mindset. But who knows. Apparently a slight majority of U.S. citizens support gay marriage now; something I wasn't expecting for a while. And I didn't expect us to elect a non-white president until I was middle-aged at least (though that seemed to be a "one step forward; one hundred steps back" situation). So maybe I can allow myself to be a little optimistic about this.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Friday, July 24, 2009
Hm
So. We've got this comic, which I'm guessing (from the language used) was made by an anti-BDSM radfem. Hm. Two reactions:
1) That third panel makes me cringe. If there's one thing that I've learned from intersectionalist analysis, it's that comparing one form of oppression to another (as in, "X oppression is just like Y!") is almost always problematic. And this particular example strikes me as less satirical and more... straight-up racist. I dunno - there's something about the use of a blackface character (in front of a black background, no less) with a "U.S.S. Kinky" hat talking in a stereotypical "darkie" accent that... it seems as though the creator of this comic doesn't really care about fighting racism and instead is just using provocative imagery to vilify BDSM. Because comparing kink to blackface? Really? Really?!
2) In the very next panel, the first sailor points out he can't help that he's turned on by women in bondage, while the second sailor (i.e. the mouthpiece for the creator) pontificates at length about how "this stuff" (I'm assuming he/the author means bondage porn) promotes violence against women at the expense of love and intimacy ("though there's nothing wrong with erotica," of course*). Meanwhile, Wonder Woman, who's hog-tied, says, "Hey guys! I think my feet are falling asleep!" But, of course, she's ignored.
I think this particular panel neatly encapsulates a lot of debate over BDSM (and porn, and basically any type of sex work, too). On the one hand, you've got the average consumer, who says, "I like what I like! Besides, I love women!" On the other hand, you've got the mostly radfem types who pontificate at length about how BDSM/porn/sex work/all of the above degrades all women, full stop. And the women actually involved in BDSM/porn/sex work/all of the above, who have the most to contribute to the conversation, are ignored by both sides.
But I don't think that's the point the author wanted to make.
*sigh*
*How does that old saying, go again? Something along the lines of, "What I like is erotica and is beautiful; what you like is pornography and is disgusting."
1) That third panel makes me cringe. If there's one thing that I've learned from intersectionalist analysis, it's that comparing one form of oppression to another (as in, "X oppression is just like Y!") is almost always problematic. And this particular example strikes me as less satirical and more... straight-up racist. I dunno - there's something about the use of a blackface character (in front of a black background, no less) with a "U.S.S. Kinky" hat talking in a stereotypical "darkie" accent that... it seems as though the creator of this comic doesn't really care about fighting racism and instead is just using provocative imagery to vilify BDSM. Because comparing kink to blackface? Really? Really?!
2) In the very next panel, the first sailor points out he can't help that he's turned on by women in bondage, while the second sailor (i.e. the mouthpiece for the creator) pontificates at length about how "this stuff" (I'm assuming he/the author means bondage porn) promotes violence against women at the expense of love and intimacy ("though there's nothing wrong with erotica," of course*). Meanwhile, Wonder Woman, who's hog-tied, says, "Hey guys! I think my feet are falling asleep!" But, of course, she's ignored.
I think this particular panel neatly encapsulates a lot of debate over BDSM (and porn, and basically any type of sex work, too). On the one hand, you've got the average consumer, who says, "I like what I like! Besides, I love women!" On the other hand, you've got the mostly radfem types who pontificate at length about how BDSM/porn/sex work/all of the above degrades all women, full stop. And the women actually involved in BDSM/porn/sex work/all of the above, who have the most to contribute to the conversation, are ignored by both sides.
But I don't think that's the point the author wanted to make.
*sigh*
*How does that old saying, go again? Something along the lines of, "What I like is erotica and is beautiful; what you like is pornography and is disgusting."
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Watch out - here comes a political post!
I was going to post this on my personal journal, decided I didn't want to risk antagonizing my friends, some of whom might take exception to my views on abortion, and posted it here. It was inspired by this disturbing news article (pointed out by Trin) about women who choose to abort because the fetus had minor defects that are easily fixable with surgery.
To be honest, before I started reading the journals of Trin, Bint, Miss Nomered, and others who focus on disability activism, I had never seriously thought about ableism before - and especially not about how it affects the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Fortunately for me, I'm starting to learn more about disability activism, and it's really changed the way I view society, including how I view abortion. So, after a bit of mulling, here's my long-winded stance on abortion as it stands at the moment:
I hope I will never need to get an abortion. I know for some women abortions are no big deal - not much different than taking emergency contraception, if a bit more medically involved - but I have a hard time seeing abortion as a "morally neutral medical procedure," as I've seen it put, because I think you're still killing something that, if it doesn't miscarry on its own, could become a whole person. It may be a product of my socialization, but doesn't make my apprehension less real.
However, that does not mean I think a woman's right to get an abortion should be infringed in any way, shape, or form. The rights of a woman trump the rights of a bundle of cells in her uterus, full-stop. End of story. Having a child can drastically change one's life forever, and only the woman herself can decide if she's ready for that. If she isn't, then she deserves unfettered access to the resources she needs to avoid having children, which means not only abortions but also safe, effective, and affordable contraception. Conversely, if she is ready, then she deserves quality health care to make sure she and her child are safe, regardless of her age, income level, or marital status. (Of course, implicit in this is that a woman also deserves a comprehensive, accurate education on sexual health so that she is able to make an informed choice.)
But what about a woman who was going to have a child, then found out the fetus had a developmental defect and decided to abort it? On the one hand, raising a child with a disability can require a tremendous dedication of time and resources that the parent(s) simply cannot afford. That's perfectly understandable, especially considering how fucked up the US's health care system is at the moment. On the other hand, when a woman decides to abort just because she doesn't want her kid to be a "freak" with six fingers or (heaven forbid!) "retarded," that's ableism. To call that morally questionable would be the understatement of the year.
What it is not, however, is a reason to restrict abortion access. There is no possible way for the government or any private organization to divine whether a woman's intentions for getting an abortion are "pure." It would end up going one of two ways: either officials would look the other way while women aborted "defective" fetuses anyway, or officials would "err on the side of caution" and wind up denying access to hundreds of women who genuinely needed abortions. It's entirely possible that both scenarios could happen simultaneously, with the first one applying to upper-class women and the second scenario affecting lower-class women. Regardless, it'd be shitty all around.
So what can be done? Far as I can tell, the best thing to do is try to change how society views people with disabilities and what it actually means to be disabled. Once women realize that having a child with a disability isn't the end of the world, they will probably be less likely to abort because of a developmental defect. It's basically the same thought process behind reducing abortions through comprehensive sex education and affordable sexual health care - if you give people the resources so that they don't need (or feel they need) abortions, then naturally they won't get them.
Of course, changing the deeply-ingrained opinions of all of society is really fucking hard. So it's going to take a lot of work, and it's not going to happen any time soon.
Actually, I'm thinking maybe I will post this on my other journal. A friend of mine who's been making uncomfortably ableist remarks reads it; maybe reading this will give her the gentle poke she needs.
To be honest, before I started reading the journals of Trin, Bint, Miss Nomered, and others who focus on disability activism, I had never seriously thought about ableism before - and especially not about how it affects the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Fortunately for me, I'm starting to learn more about disability activism, and it's really changed the way I view society, including how I view abortion. So, after a bit of mulling, here's my long-winded stance on abortion as it stands at the moment:
I hope I will never need to get an abortion. I know for some women abortions are no big deal - not much different than taking emergency contraception, if a bit more medically involved - but I have a hard time seeing abortion as a "morally neutral medical procedure," as I've seen it put, because I think you're still killing something that, if it doesn't miscarry on its own, could become a whole person. It may be a product of my socialization, but doesn't make my apprehension less real.
However, that does not mean I think a woman's right to get an abortion should be infringed in any way, shape, or form. The rights of a woman trump the rights of a bundle of cells in her uterus, full-stop. End of story. Having a child can drastically change one's life forever, and only the woman herself can decide if she's ready for that. If she isn't, then she deserves unfettered access to the resources she needs to avoid having children, which means not only abortions but also safe, effective, and affordable contraception. Conversely, if she is ready, then she deserves quality health care to make sure she and her child are safe, regardless of her age, income level, or marital status. (Of course, implicit in this is that a woman also deserves a comprehensive, accurate education on sexual health so that she is able to make an informed choice.)
But what about a woman who was going to have a child, then found out the fetus had a developmental defect and decided to abort it? On the one hand, raising a child with a disability can require a tremendous dedication of time and resources that the parent(s) simply cannot afford. That's perfectly understandable, especially considering how fucked up the US's health care system is at the moment. On the other hand, when a woman decides to abort just because she doesn't want her kid to be a "freak" with six fingers or (heaven forbid!) "retarded," that's ableism. To call that morally questionable would be the understatement of the year.
What it is not, however, is a reason to restrict abortion access. There is no possible way for the government or any private organization to divine whether a woman's intentions for getting an abortion are "pure." It would end up going one of two ways: either officials would look the other way while women aborted "defective" fetuses anyway, or officials would "err on the side of caution" and wind up denying access to hundreds of women who genuinely needed abortions. It's entirely possible that both scenarios could happen simultaneously, with the first one applying to upper-class women and the second scenario affecting lower-class women. Regardless, it'd be shitty all around.
So what can be done? Far as I can tell, the best thing to do is try to change how society views people with disabilities and what it actually means to be disabled. Once women realize that having a child with a disability isn't the end of the world, they will probably be less likely to abort because of a developmental defect. It's basically the same thought process behind reducing abortions through comprehensive sex education and affordable sexual health care - if you give people the resources so that they don't need (or feel they need) abortions, then naturally they won't get them.
Of course, changing the deeply-ingrained opinions of all of society is really fucking hard. So it's going to take a lot of work, and it's not going to happen any time soon.
Actually, I'm thinking maybe I will post this on my other journal. A friend of mine who's been making uncomfortably ableist remarks reads it; maybe reading this will give her the gentle poke she needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)