Not that we needed further proof radscum are racist and stuck in the 60’s…
[TW for discussion of forced sterilization and racism]
So someone on Feministing (I think) finally made the connection that trans* rights and reproductive rights/abortion are both fundamentally about bodily integrity and autonomy and therefore have many intersections, and proponents of both should be working together (something I’ve been saying since day one, along with many other trans* people before me).
Well radical feminists aren’t having it. Apparently the fact eludes them that forced sterilization and forced birth are two sides of the same antichoice coin. Which brings me to my main point. This so-called “conflict of interest” has happened before (maybe more than once?). During the second wave the interests and reproductive rights of wealthy, white feminists and WoC were going in opposite directions. White women were demanding access to abortion and to voluntary sterilization without restrictions from paternalistic doctors and simultaneously WoC were struggling to: be allowed to have children, not be demonized for having children, not be forcibly sterilized (often without their knowledge or consent), and not be tested on for development of contraception or other medications. Guess who was prioritized. Exactly. There’s a history here and a lot of tension and mistrust (rightfully) still remains because rich, white women made “reproductive rights” synonymous with what they needed access to and completely avoided the fact that the right to have children is as much of a reproductive rights issue as the right to abort/not have children.
My point is we know these radical feminists hate intersectionality because they think sex-based oppression is the only thing that matters (this is racist all on its own) and we know they hate trans* people. The fact that they don’t see how important forced sterilization is now anymore than they did back then has some serious implications considering the intersection of race and trans* status. Forced sterilization affects us all but TWoC are disproportionately the victims of violence and often have an even more precarious and tenuous relationship to the medical establishment, opening them up to all kinds of violations, particularly in regards to reproductive rights. That once again forced sterilization isn’t a priority for radical feminists and reproductive rights activists is further proof of their racism and the fact that White Feminism™ is alive and well, in case you doubted it for a split second.
I would point out it’s not just radscum. Sure, radscum are the most obvious and most extreme but mainstream/liberal feminism still doesn’t really give a shit about reproductive rights as anything but abortion and voluntary sterilisation. Oh, wait, I take it back, they will sometimes mention fistulas and women in the developing countries but it’s still self-centred and paternalistic to other people. White Feminism™ lives in the mainstream as well as the backwater sludge that is the radscum.
Oh, definitely, definitely! I was just a little hyper-focused on them because this was a direct response to some stuff I saw on radical feminist blogs, but you’re absolutely right and I do usually go after mainstream/liberal feminists just as hard on this issue as well. They’re certainly not much better.
Update: 11 year old trans girl lost appeal
The above article is an update. Her mother went to appeal to keep her out of the psychiatric ward and lost. She will be institutionalized because of her expression of her gender. She will be held until she conforms to male gender and then released to foster care, not her mother who was supporting her.
Please, if you haven’t signed the petition, sign it, reblog it, ask your friends to sign it. We’ve managed to get 40K signatures for a pageant model, we’ve only gotten 11K for a little girl about to have her life ruined. Lets get on the ball and spread the word.
This is not true! The girl is not being admitted to any sort of psychiatric ward. The article displays wrong information. I live in Berlin and have followed the story closely. The actual court desicion was posted online and it explicitly says that Alex “is not being admitted to a psychiatric ward”.
Yes, there was some controversy because initially the Jugendamt (child welfare service) were contacted by her dad and he wanted her mother to lose custody because he claimed she “talked Alex into her transsexualism.” The mother did lose the appeal and therefore custody over Alex but because custody and specifically decisions about health services were transferred to the child welfare services she can get further medical services like hormone blockers quicker now. Otherwise her parents would have continued fighting over her and those services could have been severly delayed.
Well this is promising news, thank you queerinberlin! The google translate into English of the link is horrendous, but it does seem to say that she won’t be institutionalized.
Supreme Court: No re-transmission of health care from social services to the child’s mother in connection with a suspected diagnosis of transsexualism, a 11-year old child (PM 22/2012)
Press Release Berlin, 29.03.2012
The President of the Supreme Court
press office of the Berlin Civil Courts
Elßholzstr. 30-33, 10781 Berlin The 19th Civil Division of the Supreme Court - the Senate for family matters - By order of 15th March 2012 complaint rejected a mother who was against the background of the diagnosis requires a 11-year old child of her transsexuality, the restitution of health care from social services for themselves. This gives the family the Senate confirmed the first instance decision of the district court that had rejected a transfer of the health care of the parents as well as a return transfer to the child’s mother alone. In support of the Senate stated, a reverse transfer’m currently not due to a continuing danger to the child’s welfare in consideration. The child’s parents were divided about the type of required medical monitoring for possible transsexuality. Therefore, there is a risk that a blockade would lead to further diagnostics of massive damage to the child. Literally, it says in the decision because: “There is an urgent need to clarify the issue of transsexualism and treated with the necessary form, which may include support this development by taking action before reaching majority. It’s not about to find, already has a certain course of treatment, but the child’s access to medical treatment at all to keep it open. To this danger - and subsequently the proportionality of the withdrawal of health care and their application for a supplementary nurse - find it necessary, contrary to the child’s mother (…) none of the expert opinion. The risk is not disputed by the mother herself and is headed to the favored of their transmission to health care justify them alone. She also argues that X. Badly needed professional help and support ‘(…) The question of proportionality is a legal, which resolved not by an opinion, but the Senate replied to be. “ A transfer of health care to the child’s mother alone distinguishes been made because currently no appears assured that they would exercise this alone for the sake of the child, then the Senate. Contrary to what some press reports in recent days has not decided the Supreme Court in these proceedings that the child “may be admitted to a mental”. Neither the family tent of the Senate regarding the suitability or necessity of certain medical accompanying measures taken for the child. Court of Appeal, decision of 15 March 2012 - 19 UF 186/11 - For further information: Dr. Ulrich Wimmer (tel: 030-9015 2504 - 2290)Emphasis towards end is mine. If anyone has any news to corroborate this I’d love to see it.
post about abortions and teen parents
Part of me so wants to maul the number of shitheads who are disrespecting this woman right here and her experiences with being a teen parent. ESPECIALLY THE NUMBER OF SO CALLED PRO-CHOICE FEMINISTS SHAMING HER WITH SHIT LIKE “YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD AN ABORTION”
As someone who has seen a lot of her friends become parents in their teens and all- to that I say fuck you. As a feminist. And as someone who is feircly pro-choice.
Maybe you need a wake up call or some shit but being pro-choice MEANS SUPPORTING CHOICE.
It means RESPECTING CHOICE
It means FACILITATING CHOICE
and it also means PROTECTING CHOICE
The same way that I will do everything in my power to give you hell if you shame someone on getting an abortion
the same goes for people who shame those who choose to become parents.
And before that whole “well they should have accessed an abortion/ birth control” comes spouting out, let me remind you of a few things.
- sex education is still one of the most poorly covered topics in our education.
- sex education (the proper kind, none of that abstinence shit) is still banned or made optional depending on where you’re from. And hey, if your school is hella religious or run by a pack of shits, quite likely you won’t even access an education at all
- just putting it out there that people rally for abortion rights because NOT EVERYONE CAN ACCESS AN ABORTION. This is where class, religion and finances come in. Even in Australia, there is a state by state difference in abortion laws and who can access it and at what age. Depending on where you live, having an abortion is financially impossible to cover for. And guess what, if you do fall into a low socio-economic class or district, you sure hell won’t be able to ACCESS any means of getting an abortion, heck even decent birth control.
- If you, as a feminist have utterly dismissed things like class into the discourse THEN REVISE YOUR SHIT. LOOK AT THE STATS. IF YOU CAN’T COVER FOR WOMEN OF LOW SOCIO ECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS THEN YOU’RE DOING YOUR FEMINISM AND YOUR PRO-CHOICE BELIEFS WRONG.
- People become young parents for many reasons. Be it a lack of education, no access to birth control/ family planning clinics, personal beliefs (YES BELIEFS BECAUSE CHOICE) or what ever the circumstances. it happens. But here’s the thing, it’s none of your damn business as to how they became parents. If you, as some one who is pro-choice, as someone as a feminist refuses to support them or ostracise them for their choices/ circumstances
- Then revise your shit and re-evaluate as to why you identify with this movement if you can’t even cover the damn basics.
Ok, I’m done and I should probably add more but I am fucking fuming.
Then revise your shit and re-evaluate as to why you identify with this movement if you can’t even cover the damn basics.
http://megan-medellin.tumblr.com/ is one of the worst offenders in this.
I rage when I look at her answers, even the one she gave to the young mother herself. Fuck you megan-medellin, she’s not obligated to have ever-flowing joy oozing from her pores because you can’t conceive.
Fucking seriously? Views on motherhood are so fucked in this country. You know, last I checked, raising a human being was hard work. It’s exhausting, frustrating, depressing, and stressful. That doesn’t cancel out the love she has for her child and “the things [she] absolutely loves about being a mom,” and it’s completely childish to assume otherwise. But the love you have for your child doesn’t give you more hours in the day, or the money to pay a babysitter so you can go to college. It doesn’t make the baby’s father any more responsible, and it doesn’t magically repair your body after pregnancy and birth. Those things all still exist alongside the love and joy.
If you think attacking someone for rightfully venting about how difficult it is to be a nearly-single mother is a super-awesome pro-choice move? The pro-choice movement doesn’t fucking need you.
Ban of abortion after 6 weeks passes Mississippi House
JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi House bill would effectively ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
The bill would require doctors to search for a fetal heartbeat before performing an abortion and, if a heartbeat is found, would make going ahead with the procedure illegal.
The bill passed the House on Wednesday and now goes to the Senate, where a similar bill died in committee.
House Judiciary B Committee Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, says the bill will ban 90 percent of the abortions in the state because most women seek abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detectable.
The bill allows exemptions if the woman’s life is at risk or no fetal heartbeat can be found. There are no exemptions for rape and incest victims.
The bill is among several supported by anti-abortion groups.
___________________________________________________
This is an embryo at 6 weeks LMP (or about 28 days since fertilization):
Actual size 4-6 millimeters!
Up to 6 1/2 weeks calculated from the 1st day of the last menstruation cycle, no embryo can be visualized yet, therefore merely a gestational sac can be seen.
But, yeah, whatevs. This sounds like a great law to pass.
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is fucking outrageous.
GUYS. 6 WEEKS IS 41 DAYS. NOT 28. STOP IT.
I realize that this bill passing is terrible, but we have an image of informed intelligent human beings that we need to keep up with. Saying 6 weeks is about 28 days only confirms what ignorant people think of us.
Uh, no. You’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
6 weeks is 42 days. But pregnancy is calculated by LMP (last menstrual period). That’s 2 weeks (or 14 days) before ovulation or fertilization can even happen. So an embryo at 6 weeks of pregnancy has only been growing for 28 days (42-14=28). Hence why I labeled my image of what the embryo would look like for this legislation “6 weeks LMP (or about 28 days since fertilization).”
Honestly, if you’re going to correct me [which I’m fine with when I’m wrong] at least know what you’re talking about.
I though I made it clear that "I understand that a dying mother should get an abortion because the fetus is taking away the right for the mother to live. life for life. Yes that is justified self-preservation" (sorry it should be people conceived with children) an abortion is inevitable in that case to save lives*.How is it not goodhearted then to prevent the death of children(according to my own definition of person)if abortions r preventablecuztheyareduetosocialproblemsbutnotmental/healthprob?
In regards to the part you quoted: I read it, I understood it, and I agree that’s one reason to get an abortion, so I didn’t feel the need to address it in my response. But I whole-heartedly disagree that it’s the only valid reason for getting an abortion and I think I’ve explained why very clearly. Twice.
In regards to the goodhearted portion of this ask: I linked you to a post that very clearly illustrated how the “pro-life” movement supports the deaths of pregnant people all over the world. These are real people with lives, dreams, children, and partners who are contributing to their communities and who have rights. They’re dead. And more people will die if you get your way. That’s just a fact. So no, I vehemently disagree that there’s anything fundamentally pro-life or goodhearted about your movement.
I’ve also made it very clear that you need to stop trivializing what you like to call the “inconvenient/social” reasons behind people’s choice to get an abortion versus medical emergencies.
- Bodily integrity doesn’t dissipate with pregnancy
- Consent can be revoked without experiencing a medical emergency
- You don’t get to decide what are and aren’t valid reasons for utilizing a basic human right
- Seriously, read the post I linked you to about pregnancy and what it entails mentally, physically, financially, etc.
Now, there are social circumstances that put a strain on people and they get abortions not necessarily because they don’t want more children but because they can’t provide for them at that time. And that is something worth rectifying, but I assure you it’s prochoice democrats that are the ones working to build a stronger social safety net. We’re the ones advocating for the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Head Start, WIC, TANF, SNAP, free or reduced school lunches, better/paid maternity and paternity leave, extended unemployment benefits, access to a college education or learning a trade, tax breaks for the middle and working classes, an end to the “welfare stigma”, family planning and Planned Parenthood, comprehensive sex education, and access to contraceptives. All of these things will make people’s lives healthier, less stressful, more successful and educated, and more predictable. We want people to be able to plan their lives rather than living paycheck to paycheck. We want people to be able to afford another child if that’s what they want, not have abortions because they live in a society that makes it impossible to be a single mother in poverty. On and on. And it’s always “prolife” Republicans dragging their heels.
Some abortions could be prevented with better social nets and opportunities for all of our citizens and some could be prevented with sex education and contraceptive access. But abortion isn’t the problem, it’s social circumstances. And then there will always be people that never want to get pregnant and need abortion for that reason and those with wanted pregnancies that need abortion when things go wrong, as they can and do. So as I said, taking away abortion without addressing the root cause of many abortions isn’t practical and it’s not a solution. And it’s my side that actually wants to address the problems along with caring for those people that will still need abortion even in a perfect world.
I think I’ve given you a great deal of my time and effort, but I’m pretty convinced by your questions that you’re not actually taking the time to read and think about the things I’m saying or linking you to, and at this point I’m just repeating myself.
I respect you're opinion. please read my new post. thanks
Thanks I guess. I read it. Here’s a link for those who are interested.
I’m guessing this is some kind of response to my original reblog, but I can’t really tell because you never mention me specifically and it’s not a reblog of what I wrote. But regardless:
- I don’t think you’re a bad person per se, but you are severely misinformed.
- All of my beliefs were clearly laid out in my original post. I’m hoping you actually read through the links I gave you, but somehow I kind of doubt it.
but I dislike the 93% who had abortion due to social reasons such as inconvenience and unwanting the baby.
You wouldn’t be saying this if you had actually digested what I wrote on this topic and conveniently linked to you. Pregnancy is a life changing thing and no one is required to do it. Abortion is a human right whether you find it personally morally repulsive or not. Not wanting to be pregnant is a good enough reason to terminate a pregnancy. You don’t get to dictate what others do with their own bodies or how they utilize their rights. I don’t need to be experiencing a medical emergency to revoke consent, that’s not how consent works.
Personally, I can’t accept your view that the fetus is not a person.
That’s fine. But it is the default position that’s informed by precedent, bio ethics, science, and the Constitution among other things. You can’t prove personhood with secular reasoning (this isn’t a theocracy after all), and even if personhood was somehow agreed on, people don’t have the right to use other people’s bodies without consent. Full stop.
If you accept the fact that embryo/fetus is human, then killing him/her, is taking away the human right to live which I thought was way more important than bodily integrity.
Everyone, including me, agrees that embryos are alive and human. That is a simple, biological reality. But human rights and personhood are reserved for those who are born. Seriously, read the human rights link I gave you.
”No right to someone else’s body”, “babies are not innocent”… since when did the baby’s (fetus) natural dependence on the mother for survival can be interpreted as a sin? if i use your body do I deserve a death sentence? The right to live is greater than any other rights.
I never said it was a sin. I said your “innocence” rhetoric is misplaced emotional manipulation. You’re either using innocent in a secular sense meaning innocent until proven guilty, which we all are and the embryo isn’t more so making it a moot point, or you’re using it in the sectarian sense of innocent versus evil, which has no place in this conversation. Obviously you’re utilizing the latter form by mentioning sin now. And it still has no place in the conversation. No, you don’t get to use my body without consent, that should be obvious as well. An embryo has no rights and for good reason: it’s very existence conflicts with the rights of the person it’s inside of. If the person doesn’t want it there, there’s no consent. Again, read the “fetus focus fallacy” link I gave you.
okay, so you think I am heartless and uncaring for women, friends, and family. But when it comes to justice… can their personal desires(not medical reasons) overrule life? I would give positive support to my friends and family in raising their babies. I’m sorry I have to value precious lives. Today, we couldn’t have met some of our friends and family if they weren’t allowed to be born.
I never said that you were heartless or uncaring, though your words are beginning to speak for themselves. I address personal desires vs medical reasons above. Personally, I find forced birth repulsive. If they never existed in the first place then they’re not our friends and family.
The main problem is that you don’t believe that fetus is human. but just an organism of another species…? jk. what is your definition? and so therefore his/her right to live isn’t even considered at all. therefore, women are justified to protect their body from this inhuman object.
Again, why can’t you address anything I actually wrote? I would be foolish to claim an embryo is another species. But mere human DNA does not a person make. There is nothing overly special about it. My concern is with the pregnant person, the actual person who undeniably and unquestioningly has rights.
Our ultimate difference is whether we consider embryos/fetuses are humans, homo sapiens. However if it’s not, what were babies weeks before they are born?
WTF?
I believe that perhaps we are both goodhearted people protecting what seems right to ourselves. my opinion: the lives of humans. you: the rights of women.
This is such a simplistic notion it’s not even funny. You are fighting for a basic human right to be taken away from all people capable of being pregnant which will undoubtedly lead to thousands of people dying, and I’m fighting for my life and the lives of those I love to have choices. You’re movement kills people and honestly there’s nothing goodhearted about it. [note for that link: that’s an old post and I haven’t updated it’s cis-centric language yet but I will when I have time.]
Just wondering, if you actually believe that fetus have the right to live, would you still think that bodily integrity is more important? Similarly, would you let parents who are troubled financially or emotionally to kill their teenagers, children, toddlers, babies, or fetus?
Again, bodily integrity doesn’t dissipate with pregnancy, I will always care more about pregnant people. The second sentence is outright ridiculous. It’s a straw man and you need to learn the difference between biological and social dependency.
and why bring trans ppl into this? homosexuals can do whatever they want as long as they don’t kill other people, especially babies.
Why? Because newsflash I am trans*. And trans* people can get pregnant. And because you’ve been misgendering me for two whole posts now with all your cissexist rhetoric.
Trans* people and gay/bi/lesbian/pan/etc people are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing; so I have zero clues as to why you’re conflating them. None of us are advocating for killing people, including babies. But embryos do not have personhood.
This is my stop: Dear White Feminists™,
Look at yourselves and how you’re acting right now. A WoC dares to point out that Rush Limbaugh has been saying racist and sexist shit to WoC for years and y’all lose your shit! You pull out every trick in the book in an attempt to derail the conversation. I’ve heard everything…
What a silly and generalizing post. Anyone with a brain has been angry with Rush Limbaugh since first learning of him. For me, that was in the 90s as a teen. This really just reads as racist stereotyping.
Oh look! Another person with reading comprehension problems!
Oh look! Another angry lady who feels her uterus is more important than certain other women’s uteruses, and who feels she can speak about race, but others may not because she says so. Good luck with that.
People tell you that you’re being too sensitive because YOU ARE. you must live in the most fucking racist place on earth because my god you do not stop going on about it! I live in a particularly multicultural society (63 different languages spoken on the road that i live on to be precise) and so maybe i’m a lil ignorant to the more racist parts of the world. but you seriously need to STOP JUDGING ALL WHITE WOMEN because that in itself is racist. you cannot just go around saying ‘white people this white people that’ because that IS RACISM. so you are actually being hypocritical. just because someone is white doesn’t mean they can’t have a say on shit so will you just stop judging white people as a whole cos i’m pretty damn sure we all have very different opinions and just because we are white shouldn’t mean that we are all ignorant to racism and are all generally racists.
This ignorant fool has decided to join the fray. How nice.
why, instead of replying with a dumb GIF, don’t you reply with a real answer and tell me how you think it’s right to judge a whole group of people!? you’re fucking ridiculous and I can’t believe that you think that you should be able to do that. If you want to talk about a certain group of people, try using words like ‘some’ instead of making your statements direct to ALL because you cannot tell me that my views are wrong when you don’t even know about them just because i’m white.
oh right, is that because you can’t think of a valid reason? i thought so. why don’t you try having a debate with someone instead of replying with this bullshit.
I’ve made my point many times. It’s not my fault you refuse to read.
What the fuck are you White Feminists still doing ranting and raving? I thought this shit had been spelled out pretty clearly hundreds of notes ago. You wonder why you’re getting GIFs instead of a PhD thesis on just how wrong you are? It’s because Lady Atheist has heard these weak-ass “arguments” her whole life. You’re not special or original. You’re not the first white woman to whine “reverse racism” and claim the black lady is getting fucking “angry.” FYI, those are racist things to do!
There is no such thing as “reverse racism”—racism is prejudice+POWER. Power is the key word here. How much power to oppress you, a white person, does Lady Atheist have? Exactly, none. I honestly don’t understand why White Feminists™ are getting so damn defensive. I think it’s pretty clear she’s not talking about all white people, or all white women. She’s talking about a pretty clear phenomenon: when a WoC says something White Feminists don’t want to hear, she is pretty quickly berated, derailed, and silenced. When a WoC dares to want to discuss their race intersecting with their sex, they’re quickly labeled “divisive.” She never said White Feminists liked Limbaugh before this. She never said there was never any outrage over Limbaugh before this. She never said White Feminists are just barely realizing that Limbaugh is a complete douche. She’s saying it’s a tad bit interesting that he got away with attacking the FLOTUS unscathed, but he dares call a white woman a slut and now the country is up in arms and he’s losing advertisers like flies.
I wrote about this shit yesterday, at length actually! Go read it, you might fucking learn something. I even explain why there would have been no outrage over this happening to a WoC [so you can stop saying the response would have been the same], and I go on to explain why it’s highly unlikely a WoC would have been invited in the first place!
Just a few more things:
“What a silly and generalizing post.” That shit’s condescending. Do you understand the use of ™? Again, she was talking about a specific group and this phenomena that happens in feminism whenever WoC talk. If it’s not about you, it’s not about you. Your defensiveness says a lot. I read this and I knew she wasn’t talking about me as an individual. She’s talking about Whiteness in Feminism and how that always plays out badly for WoC.
“Another angry lady who feels her uterus is more important than certain other women’s uteruses, and who feels she can speak about race, but others may not because she says so.” Angry lady—yup that’s a racist trope. She doesn’t think she’s more important, she thinks she’s just as important—funny how asking for her humanity to be recognized makes White Feminists assume she’s got a holier than thou attitude.
“People tell you that you’re being too sensitive because YOU ARE. you must live in the most fucking racist place on earth because my god you do not stop going on about it!” Too Sensitive?! Really?? I’m guessing you know a multitude of statistics about the wage gap and rape and DV and discrimination and murder rates and street harassment when it pertains to white women, but how do you think it works when your a black woman? Do you think it’s the same or could it possibly be worse? Ya’know that whole intersectionality thing. And the thing that gets me is black women have one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy and therefore have a disproportionate rate of abortions in the US. This stems from institutional and systemic RACISM. So a WoC would have been a great person to have at this hearing, since losing contraception coverage (or not getting it at all) would arguably have a greater impact on WoC. But no, a WoC wasn’t invited, nor would she have been. And god forbid WoC say something when a veritable nobody like Sandra Fluke constitutes a boycott of Limbaugh the likes of which we’ve never seen before but the First Fucking Lady of the United States gets…nothing. This is just a perpetuation of the fucking status quo. This is just par for the course.
You White Feminists seem to be under the belief that if Fluke was a WoC she would have received the same support and the reaction would have been the same. NO. How you’re treating Lady Atheist is how a Black Fluke would have been treated. She would have been told that Black women really are sluts that want the government to pay for everything they want. She would have been told she’s “too sensitive” and she’s being “divisive” and she needs to “lighten up” because otherwise she’s the “Angry Black Woman™” who can’t take a joke. She’d be told that Limbaugh treats everyone like that and she shouldn’t take it personal because she’s going to make all “her people” look bad. And there would have been more outrage over how she chose to respond to Limbaugh than over the names he called her. And there wouldn’t have been any MSM coverage to speak of. And on it goes.
“oh right, is that because you can’t think of a valid reason? i thought so. why don’t you try having a debate with someone instead of replying with this bullshit.” This shit aint a debate, it’s real fucking life. And racism+sexism gets WoC killed. This is when you really need to STFO.
A Few More Points on Fluke/Limbaugh
[TW for sexist slurs and discussion of racist tropes of WoC]
So I commented on Lady Atheist’s post on White Feminists™ back when I think there were 150 notes. Now there’s over 600+ and I’ve been following most of it. There is some bullshit comments from my fellow white people though, so I just want to say a few more things:
How can you read the original post, and my thoughts which elaborated on it, and still have the audacity to claim race played no part in the response? No, really. Saying that it’s the high-profile nature of the hearing and not the color of Fluke’s skin (and her class status as well) that contributed to the high level of outrage and the loss of advertisers, is just straight up wrong. Making malicious, racist comments about the FLOTUS? It doesn’t get more high profile than that, and yet Limbaugh stuck around. And FLOTUS is a well-educated WoC, fairly well-off, and is in a traditionally well-respected position in our country. And yet that didn’t shield Michelle Obama from vicious attacks and it certainly didn’t garner her any sympathy. People like to talk about her fashion sense while simultaneously utilizing the angry black lady trope and calling her manly and all kinds of other nonsense, to say nothing of the racist vitriol spewed by Limbaugh and his Faux News cronies. So forgive me, but if the FLOTUS isn’t enough to get the public up in arms I don’t think a WoC college student on Fluke’s level [aka pretty much a nobody in terms of publicity before this] would have garnered any outrage. Maybe I’m cynical, but I just don’t buy it.
Which leads me to my second point. I was thinking to myself about such a scenario. What would happen in all likelihood if Sandra Fluke had been a WoC college student (or a poor, WoC college student for that matter), and I realized she’d have to fucking be invited in the first place for us to find out. And I just don’t think that would have happened. I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi, let alone those GOP douchefucks, have any interest in hearing testimony from a WoC about birth control, let alone a poor WoC.
The whole point of the testimony was to a) give a relatable human face to the contraception mandate and b) get support for the liberal side of the discussion, especially from moderates or even people in the GOP who would be watching the news. Now, we all know that white people are the universal default; everyone can relate to us but PoC are only for a “niche” population. So no, I don’t think they would see her as a relatable or even sympathetic face for the discussion. And how are WoC perceived [from both sides of the aisle, but especially the GOP]?: they’re a) parasitic, welfare queens always looking for government handouts and b) over-sexualized sluts who can’t control themselves. Remember this for later.
Now, most informed people know that this contraception debacle has never been about government subsidizing contraception (it’s about your insurance that you pay premiums for covering it with no co-pay), nor is it about letting the sluts run free and have all kinds of care-free orgies with all their free birth control. Granted, there would be zero wrong with doing that, but it’s about healthcare and the fact that contraception is absolutely preventative care that should be covered because it’s good for people that can get pregnant, it’s good for business, it’s good for the country, it’s good for everyone. Despite all these facts, that’s not how this has been spun by the MSM or the GOP pundits; Limbaugh is proof of that. They’ve taken the facts off the rails and driven us into absurd territory about “nympho co-eds going broke for contraception because they have so much of teh seks and they want the taxpayers to pay for it.” And that’s when the poster girl for the discussion is white, cis, and middle class—someone most people can fucking identify with.
Now replace her with a poor WoC—someone many people in our so-not-fucking-post-racial society don’t have sympathy for. Someone many people would classify (as I mentioned) as a welfare queen and a overly sexual slut. Someone many Americans (and many politicians) feel totally fine demonizing, caricaturizing, forcibly sterilizing, sexualizing. You really mean to tell me it would even occur to anyone on Capital Hill to invite a WoC, let alone a poor WoC (you know someone who would be most likely to be adversely affected by having no contraceptive coverage), to testify? No, son, that would have been political suicide [sadly] because a WoC would invoke the exact mythical stereotype that the GOP is using, and a WoC wouldn’t have ivory white skin to point to and say “nope you’re totally wrong, come save me *F*eminists and MSM.”
You really think they’d even be invited for us to test out your theory that the response would be the same? And if by some miracle they were invited, Limbaugh’s remarks would have been par for the course. Because that’s how we expect rich, white, cis male douchefucks to treat WoC. There would have been no outcry. Period.
If you think there would have been, you must be white, and I’m here to collect you.
[TW slurs] A Friendly Reminder: Don’t Call Out -ists With -isms.
Yes, the GOP political candidates are racist, sexist, classist, ableist, heterosexist, and cissexist bigots. Absolutely. But let’s not call them out by saying they’re “idiots”, “batshit crazy”, “delusional”, “lame”, “stupid”, “retarded”, etc.
Let’s not call out racist women by calling them “dumb bitches.”
Let’s not call out cissexist feminists by calling them “morons.”
Let’s not call out heterosexist poc by calling them “welfare queens.”
Let’s not call out sexist men by calling them “fags.”
Let’s not call out ableist people by calling them “selfish sluts.”
Let’s not call out classist people by calling them “crazy rich people.”
It’s called intersectionality. And trying to combat -ists with -isms will never be okay. Few people are privileged on every single axis, oppressions can’t be compared, and your oppression doesn’t make you incapable of being oppressive on another axis. Someone said something -ist? By all means take them down. But no one needs to engage in -isms to do it. You’re hurting other people when you do that. And their oppression, perpetuated by you, is no less painful than the fucked up thing you’re angry about. Full stop.
Lastly, garnering solidarity under the guise of -isms isn’t cool either.
You “Stand With Planned Parenthood”? How about you support them instead?
not all oppressions are equal, some things aren’t oppressed at all, and trying to erase that fundamental fact is utterly dishonest.
Let’s not call out cissexist feminists by calling them “morons.”
…what?
Let’s not call out classist people by calling them “crazy rich people.”
WHAT
I don’t think there are words to express how much I disagree with some of the points in this post.
well, we shouldn’t call classists crazy. that individuates the problem too much, reducing a systemic matter to a question of personal characteristics.
it’s still 100% cool to call them “vicious evil fucks” or “shitbags” in my book.
Fair’s fair. I can accept that.
I think people are missing the point entirely. Calling classist people “crazy” is absolutely ableist, it’s oppressive, and offensive to people like me who have a mental illness. I’ve been poor my entire life and I have no patience for classist people, but calling them “crazy” is just hurting another community, a community I happen to belong to. Using ableism against classists (or any other -ist) will never be okay, no matter how much the social justice community (in general) likes to trivialize it.
Same goes for “moron.”
TW: CISSEXISM
[Catholic Girl Problem #40: Having our dignity and femininity under attack for almost 40 years under Roe v Wade. Screenshot from: mycatholicgirlproblems.tumblr.com]
“Many feminists insist that abortion is necessary for women to participate freely and equally in society. Anyone who disagrees, they argue, has merely adopted patriarchal standards and accepted women’s ‘place’ in society. Yet this argument demonstrates how deeply the roots of sexism run in our culture. Its premise is a sexist one—that women are inferior to men and that in order to be equal, we have to change our biology to become like men—wombless and unpregnant at will. What other oppressed group in history has had to undergo surgery in order to be equal?” Marilyn Dickstein Kopp
Hey, cissexist prochoice “feminists.” I bet you don’t like it when antis conflate femininity and reproduction like this. It’s kind of gross right? Well, guess what? You don’t get to complain because this is precisely what you advocate for when you actively refuse to be inclusive. Which, you know, would weaken every outdated stereotype they peddle [and would meet the bare minimum for being a decent human being!]. They use gender essentialism against you and you’ve chosen to “fight” it by…fighting for the “right” to be gender essentialist and cissexist towards us. Funny how that works.
Oh and, “What other oppressed group in history has had to undergo surgery in order to be equal?” That’s cute.
Pretty much all of that.
People with penises also undergo surgery so as not to have any more children, too. It’s about being able to participate equally in society, and people with the capability to become pregnant are automatically at a disadvantage.
On a different note, I’m not sure what’s with the horror and disgust about being “unpregnant at will.” Whatever your political leanings, I’m pretty sure we all enjoy not being pregnant when we don’t want to be.
There’s another population that always seems to get left out by these anti-choice feminists bewailing the loss of femininity: People who have had their uteruses removed to prevent the spread of cancer, say, or people who are infertile. Anti-choicers are typically totally dismissive (or worse) of people who don’t fit all nice and neat into Boy with Penis or Girl with Vagina, but surely they could be sympathetic to this group. But what are these people, according to anti-choicers? After all, without our reproductive organs, what good are we, really? Who are we, if we aren’t Boy Who Impregnates and Girl Who Gets Pregnant?
That’s the problem with the anti-choice view, and with anti-choice feminism. People don’t fit into boxes. They don’t fit into the categories the anti-choice so desperately want them to. There are boys with uteruses, girls with testicles, people who don’t identify as either or identify as both, and people who’ve had all of their reproductive organs removed. To inextricably tie - no, to base someone’s identity entirely on the contents of their pants just doesn’t work. To say that refusing to live at the whim of our reproductive organs is denying our dignity or femininity is absurd. Gender and identity is so much more than that, and it absolutely blows my mind that people who call themselves feminists can’t see that.
I don’t know guys, I’ve been real sick all week, so this might not even make sense.
All good points from Bebinn in relation to original post. They have a tendency to willfully misinterpret everything that we say. I know of zero prochoice people that believe pregnant people must have abortions to be equal to people that can’t get pregnant. What I will say is essential to equality, and therefore essential for feminists, is access to reproductive healthcare and that includes abortion. Pregnancy effects a person physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, in every possible way essentially. There are so many laws that are on the books right now that restrict, and even criminalize, the lives and bodies of pregnant people, even with wanted pregnancies, that our government is virtually creating a lesser class of people solely on the basis of pregnancy. It’s just a fact that people cannot participate fully or equally in society when they are not allowed to choose parenthood freely, without the use of guilt-tripping and coercion. If people can be impregnated and forced into parenthood on the whims of others they are no longer free to plan or live their lives as they see fit. Having something like that hanging over your head is the antithesis of freedom.
As for fitting people into boxes, I agree entirely. When you live life with absolutist beliefs it can be incredibly uncomfortable to be presented with the myriad of circumstances that make up other people’s lives. I know they hate to think about all the what ifs and the complexities that make abortion necessary, but if they’re not prepared to do so, if it’s too much work, then they really have no business interjecting themselves into someone’s life when they refuse a nuanced position.
I will say, though. The jarring effect of shattering their essentialist way of thinking is precisely what we need. And that’s why I made this post to begin with. Essentialist ways of thinking are detrimental regardless of which side is using them. And it’s hard to take people seriously when they object to being objectified and characterized in the above fashion while doing the same to trans* people. It’s sort of the epitome of cognitive dissonance. I just hope all the people who are rightfully disgusted by their worth and identity being tied to reproduction are cognizant of our own movement’s gender essentialism.
nounbeast replied to your post: TW: CISSEXISM
Wow @ the blatant trans* erasure there. That last line in the quote hhhnnnnngh. Also lol, pardon me if refusing to cave to the patriarchy’s expectation that I fuck only for procreating wrecks someone else’s ability to label me a ~proper lady~.
Yeah, both examples pretty much blew my mind. But what’s worse is seeing supposed allies reblogging both of them all day, rightfully disgusted, but with zero commentary on a) the blatant trans* erasure and cissexism or b) any inkling of self-awareness that the prochoice side acts exactly like this. Not only that, but they feel entitled to do so.
antichoice propaganda image at link
[clipped four people for brevity]
I agree with everything prolongedeyecontact person said, except that last bit. Women’s issues are not issues that do not involve men at all. Women’s issues are just issues that affect women and that are usually a result of women’s oppression. Abortion is a women’s issue. The fact that it is an issue for men as well doesn’t mean that it’s not a women’s issue, because reproductive rights are rights affecting women that have been taken away as a result of women’s oppression. Even with women’s rights issues, some men are going to be directly affected. And by directly affect, I don’t mean “my mom/sister/wife suffers and so I suffer too.” that’s being indirectly affected. Directly affected is “Things having to do with uteri directly affect me because I have a uterus.” Saying it’s a women’s rights issue isn’t cissexist, because ALL women’s rights issues are going to directly affect men too.
I mistyped, sorry. I meant to write that Dylan had said above me that abortion isn’t just a woman’s issue. Which is of course true. I believe whole-heartedly that it is also a feminist issue and that the driving force behind the antichoice movement is misogyny and a need to control cis women. I’m painfully aware that they hardly know I exist. But what he (and I on several occasions) are frustrated with is the cis feminists within the prochoice side that frame abortion as only a woman’s issue—that is cis-sexist. It’s hard when people who should be your natural allies also don’t want to acknowledge your existence anymore than antis do, and frame prochoice cis-sexism as necessary for the cause.
(Source: eternalhomeinheaven)
New Jersey University Hires More Staff To Cover Nurses Who Won’t Come Near Abortion Patients
[clipped for brevity]
[This is ridiculous. No one is asking them to perform or assist in abortions. Would you take the temperature of a racist, a rapist, a drug addict, a serial killer? Yeah? Than seriously shut the fuck up, because a pregnant person getting an abortion is not morally reprehensible, nor in any way comparable. It’s a constitutionally protected medical procedure. Not something anyone wants your opinion on.]
Firstly, I’m really not comfortable with putting drug addicts on the same level as serial killers and rapists.
Secondly, jfc, if you can’t do your job because of your ~morals, get a new job. It’d be like a vegan working at KFC and refusing to sell people chicken.
I don’t either. And I don’t really think that’s what I said. I’m not insinuating there isn’t a hierarchy. It was a list of behaviors that others might find morally reprehensible. Yet, I doubt they’d invoke the conscience clause in those situations because this case isn’t about their morals, it’s about misogyny. Pure and simple. It’s kind of interesting racists are on that level to you, though ;)
foulmouthedliberty replied to your link: Inter-country Adoption: Steep Declines in International Adoptions by U.S Parents Reflect Mixed Record
You’re going to love this. The Idaho church that the crazies came from after the Haiti earthquake is a 5 minute walk from my house.
I hope you give them the side-eye as much as possible :/
Wait I'm a bit confused at your last post... were you being facetious or...?
Sorry, I guess my sarcasm doesn’t always translate very well ;) The point they were trying to make is that a ridiculous comparison on thumb-sucking is enough to draw the conclusion that fetuses must be babies/people. But if that’s true…than everything that sucks it’s thumb could be labeled a baby. Not just a baby (animal) but a baby in the antichoice context. I was just making fun of their fallacious thinking.
- Anonymous
