There is nothing entertaining about the relatively few and fortunately rare specimens of human Ebola virus incubated, however unintentionally, in the warm petri dish of Pro-Life civic virtue.
Disgruntled Would-Be Baby Buyers Many years ago, a pro-choice friend working the gantlet outside her local clinic had a very white protestor shove an Asian-featured baby at her while hissing “Because of you people, I had to settle for this!” Would-be adoptive parents remain a small but fervent subset of the forced-birth terrorist squadrons. If they had as much power, education and money as Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, they could ship babies from Ireland to Latin America to circumvent inconvenient international adoption laws and guarantee themselves a couple of perfect adorable blue-eyed blonde infants. As it is, they’re reduced to dreaming of a Golden Age when healthy white American teenagers who “got in trouble” had very little choice but to “give up” their by-blows to be raised by decent, God-fearing middle-class white married couples. Yes, it can be argued there is some kind of “biological imperative” to crave a baby of one’s very own, a proto-human to carry the best possible simulacra of one’s one features, genes, and philosophies into the future. But, NO, here in America, not at the cost of using teenagers as their incubators.
(And for a brief but hair-raising tale of the dark side of this very human impulse, try The Baby Thief: Georgia Tann, the Baby Seller Who Corrupted Adoption.)
Testicle Defenders These are the men who make the police officers monitoring the legally-mandated separation zones nervous, the men whose photos are posted at every battered women’s shelter. Murder may be the number-one cause of death for pregnant women in America, but that doesn’t mean the Real Men are going to let “their” women screw them over…
“Bitch thought she could get away with killing MY baby.”
“She won’t be slutting around on me while she’s swollen out to here.”
“Good luck finding someone else dumb enough to support her lazy ass, once she’s got another man’s kid(s) hanging off her leg.”
“Everybody knows” the stories about the teenager on her fourth abortion because she doesn’t want her parents to find her birth control pills, or the lawyer who has a second-trimester abortion so she won’t lose billable hours when a big case goes to trial. But the women murdered *because they got pregnant* are just statistics — they only make the local news if there aren’t enough camera-worthy car crashes, fires, or sporting events to fill the evening timeslots.
Certified Crazies Dr. George Tiller, “Tiller the Killer”, was widely condemned by the “pro-life” media cheerleaders as a willful baby-butcher whose murder would be “justifiable homicide”. Scott Roeder, “Sovereign Citizen” and diagnosed schizophrenic, walked into a church and fatally shot Tiller in the midst of his family and friends.
There are a lot of sad, disturbed individuals wandering around unsupervised. Instructing these people that they will be applauded — even rewarded — for committing acts of violence may not be illegal, but it’s still evil.
I’m saying the pro-life crowd is full of real-life assholes doing real-life harm, and it’s imperative that we call them out for the specific, factual, actual things they do.
I’m not excusing what they do, for fuck’s sake, I’m demanding a thorough and honest accounting of what they’ve done and said so that they can be held responsible and shunned by polite society.
I wish I could competently address the plea that I am using “strawmen” or “caricatures” when it would be more effective to point at actual individuals. There needs to be a discussion about the boundary between identifying a specific person’s acts, and encouraging would-be “martyrs” to target them. Because “Naming & Shaming” is what Bill O’Reilly did to a good brave man in Kansas… and now Dr. Tiller is dead.
I want to thank all of you who commented on my earlier segments. Even when we don’t agree, I have learned from you, and (still) believe it is important that we look at these issues and discuss them honestly. I also want to thank John for his forbearance, and the opportunity to get my ideas before some of the smartest, most widely experienced commentators of any political blog I know.
One reason I set up a new personal tag is so that people who just don’t care to read about these contentious issues can killfile my offensive posts. I promise I will diligently use this tag whenever it’s relevant.
ronin122
So the first group of baby-buyers tend to have some tinges of racism, based on your anecdote? I mean, “Because of you people, I had to settle for this!” sounds kinda like coming from someone who shouldn’t probably be adopting in the first place….
cleek
strictly as a matter of technology… is there a way for readers to do a front-page killfile ? (aside from me spending the 20 minutes to write a Greasemonkey script, that is)
ThresherK
In misogynospeak, isn’t the term “because [she] got herself pregnant”?
/snark
TenguPhule
I accept the spirit of snark these vagoo posts are written in.
geg6
Anne Laurie, I, for one, am glad you’ve explored this issue. Your thoughts are pretty much the same as mine. And I know and have encountered real life examples of a person who fits in each and every one of your categories. What they all have in common is a complete disrespect for women’s individual choices and an inability to see women as intelligent human beings who can make decisions on their own, for whatever reason. Whether it’s fanatical religionists, self-absorbed yuppies who only want children who reflect their superiority and not their infertility, angry inadequate men, or complete crazies, none of them care one iota about the women they assault and harass. Keep shining the light on these people the way you have and never doubt that I’ve got your back.
JL
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times had posts talking about difficult decisions that people make. Earlier this morning the Washington Post had their article on the front page of the web but moved it inside later. The article did not paint the fantasy that Operations Rescue wanted to portray. Dr. Tiller’s death will always be a tragedy but at least a few papers are having a honest discussion.
Sea Dub
“Because of you people, I had to settle for this!”
As an adoptive parent, I hope that’s an urban myth. When I first read that, I thought “No way!” But the more I think about it, the more sadly plausible it sounds.
The Other Steve
Actually one of the most vocal anti-abortion people I know did once lament that abortion is killing all the white babies and causing our race to decline compared to latinos.
Zifnab
That’s an absolutely horrifying statistic.
Sarcastro
“Because of you people, I had to settle for this!”
Kind of the opposite of Matthew McConaughey’s weird line in Tropic Thunder; “At least you get to choose yours. I’m stuck with mine. “
Danton
A number of years ago, somewhere in the South, there was a court case involving a teen-aged girl seeking an abortion. The judge or prosecutor said something along the lines of “We need to determine if this young woman is mature enough to have an abortion.”
Disturbing, huh?
geg6
I often wonder how much the Catholic adoption agency that handled the adoption of the child my parents forced me to have and give up as a teenager got for her. Even way back then, I’ll bet it was a ton of money. The jail…er, excuse me…home to which I was sent certainly didn’t spend much on me or the other girls there unless you consider Spaghetti O’s and Campbell’s Soup and Chung King chop suey gourmet food. They made us all sign up for welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid, so I’m wondering what the profit margin was.
latts
My immediate, mean-spirited thought was ‘no, you should have settled for not having kids; it’s not my fault your body didn’t work.’ Wouldn’t say it, or course, or probably even think of it during a personal altercation, but it’s not anyone else’s duty to provide people with exactly the baby they want.
And of course the idea that she considers an Asian child a clearly lesser option is beyond troubling for the kid’s sake. There’s a particular subtext in some anti-choicers’ arguments that are really problematic– it’s particular those who were born to single moms– because they seem to be acknowledging that they weren’t wanted and anti-abortion laws were the only thing that saved them. It may very well be true (probably is in many pre-Roe cases at least), but what kind of parent lets their kids believe that, for God’s sake?
gex
@The Other Steve: This is a huge issue for the right. When my wing nut relatives bemoan the decline of Judeo-Christian values in this country, they are really talking about the decline of the white majority. Mexicans are largely Christian, but they somehow don’t count to my relatives. Hmmm…
aimai
There is absolutely a huge eugenics style component to the entire right wing anti abortion argument. Its quite explicit in the christianist version of this, in which its always potential white christian babies that are killed by white women harmed by the feminist movement. And as for the non white children? They live in pullulating cities which are sodom and gomorrah to the separatist christianists so who cares, except rhetorically, if they are aborted.
That’s so harsh of me to say. But its no strawman. Read the damn blogs yourself, just google “genocide and abortion” or any of the other catchphrases used in The Late Great Human Race or the other shaeffer family writings, above rubies, and etc….
aimai
LD50
That second clause is almost verbatim something I was going to say. I would point out that if she didn’t insist on an infant she could definitely have gotten a white child who would have been more racially acceptable. But there is a certain type of narcissistic idiot who adopts in order to create a little carbon copy of himself/herself. I shudder to imagine how that kid will be raised with a mother who viewed her as ‘settling’.
someguy
The feeble minded, the mental defectives, the insane, the cretins, the socially inadequate, the imbeciles. This describes today’s conservatives and the Republican Party generally, starting with Goldwater.
As Justice Holmes explained in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Yep, that’s right. I’m arguing that maybe eugenics is the cure. As Anne Laurie points out, they aren’t wrong, they are a pack of defectives incapable of reasoning through the issues. It’s just how they’re wired, and it’s probably due to some flaw in brain structure linked to their genetic heritage. We already know conservatism is a serious mental illness; studies have shown that. So why aren’t we serious about eliminating it the way we’re serious about eliminating other diseases that are passed on genetically?
Nancy Darling
Annie Laurie, Fifteen or twenty years ago I read an article in the L.A. Times about an abortion debate in the Louisiana State Legislature. The issue was whether abortion should be permitted in cases of incest. One rep got up on the floor and allowed as how “when you are breeding dogs, you some times breed daughter back to father to get certain traits, and you might get a real smart kid”. The proper epithet for such a man escapes me. BJ posters can probably help me out.
Tsulagi
Now there’s a “real American” parent. Poor baby, it didn’t get a choice in settling for that.
Mark
I’ve always said that one of the best ways to cut down on abortions would be to de-stigmatize unmarried pregnancy. If it becomes completely socially acceptable for young, unmarried women to carry their babies to term, more of them will do so. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Christian conservatives to hop on this bandwagon.
KG
Two thoughts.
First, about the “I had to settle for this” line. Maybe you’re body not being able to reproduce is the Universe’s way of telling you that you should not bear and raise off spring. For the good of the species and the good of the Universal Balance.
Second:
Well, there is a fine line between constitutionally protected political speech and inciting violent and/or illegal actions.
Xenos
Even if you stipulate that conservatism is a ‘serious mental illness’, it is not genetic. Maybe there is a genetic predisposition for some people to become authoritarians, but that is hardly an argument that some sort of ideological eugenics would work.
Rather, just round up everyone who voted for McCain/Palin and ship them to Somalia. It would require bending the constitutional rules a little, but it would not be eugenicide. Let’s keep our priorities in line, people.
Margarita
If it’s not an urban myth, it sure sounds like one.
Matt
“I have learned from you, and (still) believe it is important that we look at these issues and discuss them honestly.”
Then you have to realize that your post doesn’t do any this. Want to look at the insane ramblings and actions of the pro-life crowd? Great, I’m all for it; but calling people Womb Bigots and Testicle Defenders is just sophomoric and childish. These series of posts reek of “I’m in a cabin in the woods writing my manifesto to the world.” And no I’m not going to ignore your posts, because one of the things about blog comments is that people try to keep the writer honest, and let’s face it, given your writings on this issue you could use some push back.
Who the fuck talks like this? Who in the hell are you talking about? The right tends to transform all women who have an abortion as sluts and abortion providers as murderers. So, your remedy is to meet their crazed rhetoric with some of your own, and transform them (whoever “them” is) into drooling terrorists? What could this possibly advance? Everyone of this comment board will agree (more or less) with the, uh, thrust, of your argument, but you haven’t offered one interesting idea or one piece of analysis that is thought provoking. There’s a point in which passionate writing becomes histrionic and immature, the reason being that the writer cannot focus on its object of analysis. Somewhere in your post(s) this became less about abortion, and more about how clever you could be in creating new ad hominem attacks.
I hope one day you can write a post that looks at this issue “honestly”- I will be the first one to read it.
Matt
So you cannot use real examples in your post because someone might kill them? How does that even begin to make sense?
someguy
@ Matt
Matt, conservatives are scumbags. Why bother debating them?
Would you debate a KKK lynch mob* and try to come to a reasonable compromise on lynching – maybe they can do half as many as they wanted, so everybody goes away happy? Then why would you debate conservatives on a question of fundamental rights like the right to choose? There’s no middle ground. Anne Laurie’s caricatures are silly only to the extent that some people like you can’t really get your head around the nature of the people you are dealing with.
You may think it’s unfair to compare conservatives to a lynch mob. Go look up Counsel of Conservative Citizens, consider that their white separatist neoconfederate pro-segregationist group forms an extremely influential part of the GOP base in the South, and then try to tell me again that it’s not fair to compare conservatives to a lynch mob.
Brachiator
I absolutely agree with your pro-choice stance. On occasion, when I have passed by the local Planned Parenthood office, I have stopped in to make an additional donation.
And yet I find some of the way that you frame the issue, and your use of caricatures, to be both obnoxious and a detriment to discussion.
Go figure.
Snark is often the first refuge of scoundrels (see for example the SNL “Bitch, please!” critic who snaps on movies she hasn’t even seen.
And once again, we round the curve, and descend into discarding ethics altogether in order to smite our enemies.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote a wonderful essay about two sisters, Carrie Buck and her sister Doris who were sterilized in order to prevent more idiots from being born into their family.
Of course, Doris was not an idiot. And she was sterilized against her will. And this is what these discussions should be about, autonomy, liberty, a woman’s right to choose. Not cartoons.
Gould wrote about this case: “Can one measure the pain of a single dream unfulfilled, the hope of a defenseless woman snatched by public power in the name of an ideology advanced to purify a race?”
And so I let Doris have the last word here:
Doris was never told she had been sterilized until much later in life. “I broke down and cried,” she said. “My husband and me wanted children desperately. We were crazy about them.”
scav
I am so picking up some hints of hidden troll, by-the-by.
And that’s not even from Matt who merely chose to ignore the first sentence.
But, I am oddly amused by how little reality-based some of their mindsets are. They really do seem to believe that all the “babies” being aborted are adorable little perfectly healthy white cherubs. All Disney, all the time, in what passes for their world-view. My own cousins were blind-sided by friends asking if they were sure they wanted to bring into the world a mixed-race (Filipino-Czech) child – and this would be their own child in a traditional wedded relationship.
Nancy Darling
Matt, If you don’t know who talks like that and who Annie Laurie is talking about, I suggest you volunteer some of your time at a women’s shelter.
Colette
@KG:
Wait. Infertility is The Universe’s (/God’s/Mother Nature’s) way of saying you’re a bad person who doesn’t deserve children? Are you fucking serious?
TenguPhule
People who never left highschool mentally.
tripletee (formerly tBone)
Someone – IAmJohnGalt, IIRC – wrote a script for that a while back.
Anne, I was one of the people who complained about caricatures in your last post. FWIW, this one seems quite a bit more measured and not gratuitously mean.
TenguPhule
It’s hard to cross the line twice around here.
We have snark snobs.
Keith
Could you split the next post into chapters?
Matt
What? Just because I don’t call pro-life crazies Testicle Defenders and Womb Bigots, I don’t understand the people I’m up against? Yes, because dealing with your opponents as cartoonish fantasies is the way to go. That will sure stop them. Next time I walk past a right-to-life rally at the state capital, I’ll be sure to scream “Womb Bigot”! and slowly watch the rally die in their shame and horror. If the pro-lifers turn us into caricatures, and then we do the same to them, then where does this honest debate, that Anne alludes to, come from?
TR
Well, that was me you quoted there, so I guess I should respond.
For what it’s worth, I sincerely respect the fact that you’re engaging in the feedback from the cheap seats here, and this post certainly has much less in the way of strawmen and caricatures than the last two. The adoption anecdote and the Roeder bits are nicely grounded in reality.
But as Matt said above, the fake quotes you’ve offered from the abusive husbands are just ludicrous. It reads like Ann Coulter or Karl Rove when they try to put words in the mouths of liberals, and frankly, it’s just as off-putting. (And, also seconding Matt, the too-cute-by-half nomenclature doesn’t help a bit either.)
Sorry, this makes no sense. At all.
There’s a vast chasm between simply identifying a person’s words and deeds — an activity which is generally known as “reporting” and practiced, to varying degrees of success, by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people in this country — and encouraging a bloodthirsty mob to engage in violence against them.
Yes, there is a boundary, but journalists and bloggers of all stripes find it easy to stay far away from it. Present the facts as they are, and as long as you don’t tack on the “oh, when will someone rid me of this meddlesome priest” commentary at the end, you’re completely on safe ground.
I don’t think anyone in Left Blogistan is going to start shooting pro-life activists, even the more extreme ones. (I certainly hope not.) But if that’s sincerely your concern, then that’s all the more reason to dial back the hyperventilating and hyperbole and stick with the cold hard facts.
Again, thanks for taking the time to consider the contrary opinions in the comments.
Genine
Margarita,
I seriously doubt it was an urban myth. If you google, you’ll probably find a few blog posts from some conservatives lamenting the lack of white children for adoption due to abortion and feminism and how it’s leading to the downfall of Western Civilization.
MRA’s or Men’s Rights Associations. Go to a few of their blogs and read the posts and the comments. I think they may enlighten you. Just because you don’t know such people, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
There are men who see women as their “property”. (They actually use those words) The quotes Anne uses are some I have heard, directly, from a guy’s mouth. Yes, there are men who think that way.
I’ve had no problem with Anne’s posts because she is (I think) talking about the types of people who actually harass and threaten women outside clinics and such. I do not think she is speaking of the whole pro-life movement.
Also, when she was speaking of “bitter” stay-at-home mothers, she wasn’t speaking about all stay-at-home mothers. I DO know some they got married and had babies because they were “suppose to” and hate women who did not make the same choices they did. Trust me, I get an earful from them when I see them. (Which isn’t often).
Mayken
@Sea Dub: Yeah, I’m a prospective adoptive mom and I have certainly run into people in the adoptive parent community who could fall into that category. Makes me cringe because, yeah, dammit, gives those of us who are trying to build a family in as ethical a manner as possible a really bad name.
We are waiting for our referral from China now and hope to join you and others in the wonderful world of poopy diapers, toddler tantrums and embarrassing questions asked far too loudly in a restaurant very soon.
CoffeeTim
Just like LD50 and Sea Dub I want to believe the “having settled for this” story is an urban myth. I’m not sure I can though. I have seen enough in the adoption community to not be able to discount it entirely.
As the father of two daughters adopted from China I find myself amazed at how lucky I am to have them. I really don’t know how to say it but even though China was essentially our last option for adoption, I can’t imagine ever thinking we had “settled” for our daughters. We were just looking in the wrong places for a few years and it took us awhile to get to them. I’m explaining this badly but I hope you understand.
There is a sub-group among adoptive parents who see adoption as some kind of personal mission to “save” a child. Often these folks are conservative Christians but not always. This concept seems to be a bigger component of international adoptions than domestic for the obvious reasons. It strikes me as a very bad reason to bring a child into your family. It places a burden of debt on the child that s/he should never have to feel and gives the parent an emotional cudgel that I suspect is eventually used. That’s not a healthy dynamic.
From my perspective, adoption was the most selfish (not selfless) thing we ever did. We were not saving a child. This was our opportunity to have a child. Change that “s” in save to an “h” and it’s a whole different, and I believe much healthier, world.
I think I need to go home and give my two cuties hugs.
geg6
Matt has obviously never been to a battered women’s shelter, a domestic court, a women’s clinic that provides abortion, or just in general been a woman. Because I’ve been hearing shit like that my entire life and could name names to fit each and every one the categories ad infinitum. I’m old and live in Western PA. This pretty much covers a large part of the population here.
scav
Yeah, like there’s a single way to attempt all this, we’re all supposed to be all Booker T. all the time with no Malcolm X ever ever ever. Why don’t we all just sit down to tea and cross our ankles politely and maybe they’ll stop. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Joey Maloney a/k/a The Bard Of Balloon Juice
@Matt:
So if we stipulate that the names Anne uses are pearl-clutchingly awful, will you accept that there really are a fuckload of defectives just like the ones she describes? ‘Cause I met tons of them during my years as an organizer for a Citizen Action group back in the 1980s. I did a lot of door-to-door work all over five states and met a good cross-section of This Great Land Of Ours. If I’d gotten a nickel for every person that went off on an unsolicited diatribe about the eeeeeeeeevils of abortion, I could’ve poured them into a tube sock and used them to beat the next one to death.
Cackalacka
Anne Laurie,
I read this blog for two reasons: the writing is superb and the wit is razor-sharp.
As one with a Y-chromosome (and thus excludes himself from any debate around this issue, as I’m fairly certain I will never need to rely on advanced Ob-Gyn procedures for my personal health) and as someone who knows anti-choice folks who both fit, and break, your caricatures, allow me to say that I’ve enjoyed your series, immensely.
I really find the earnest concern trolls in the comments delightful. Nutcases on one side can perform acts of terrorism, and that’s just peachy (well, at least ignorable, as long as we hear the tisk-tisk caveates.) Someone from the other side studiously and accurately assesses the most vocal tribes contributing to the militarization of the debate, and all of a sudden some piss over themselves at the horror that some folks are so easily characterized. They seem to be cranking it up to 11 on the “Oh noe you din’t” juice. Smells like success.
Well done; Mr. Cole whatever you’re paying this lady, it ain’t enough.
R-Jud
That sort of abusive bile could have been uttered by several of my cousins, one of my ex-boyfriends (who was thankfully for me already ex when I heard him talking like that), a friend’s ex-husband, several guys I went to high school with, etc. Thankfully such people are a tiny fraction of the men I’ve known, but boy do they ever make an impression.
TR
Just like there’s some small fraction of the left who are completely hippie-dippy pacifists who literally wouldn’t hurt a flea and opposed going after the Taliban after 9/11 on those grounds.
Does that mean that Karl Rove is right when he insisted that “liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers”? Because a couple of those people might really exist, is it right to paint the entire antiwar movement as a bunch of touchy-feely hippies?
Those people on the right exist, and those people on the left exist. But as long as you put words in their mouths — instead of quoting their leaders and counting their numbers of followers — it’s impossible to say how meaningful those words are, and how representative they are of the movement you’re describing.
someguy
@ Matt
Yeah, it’s cartoonish, but look at the wingnuts. Randall Terry, the most prominent of the finger waggers, talks about abortion as genocide and murder, and how immoral it is, then tries to disavow any responsibility for one of his supporters gunning down a doctor in church. Seems to me if you’re rational, and believe morality is the highest law, and you see murder or genocide going down, you’d feel compelled to stop it by any means necessary. Randall Terry says he’s not responsible but he’s the guy who argued the shooter into it, and he’s the guy who practices demonstration on the brink of direct action to try to quash a woman’s right to choose. Now we’re supposed to treat him (and the National Review crowd who throw around the same language) like they have nothing to do with it and it’s just a drawing room discussion?
Anne Laurie is catching crap for being cartoonish, but how do you caricature people who think that way? The reality of them is a lot more horrifying than the cartoons. You can dismiss Anne Laurie’s hyperbole but you can’t dismiss the fact that Randall Terry and his GOP pals have stirred up a whole bunch of people looking at this incident and thinking, “man, I wish I had the balls to do that.” I wouldn’t look for any compromise or peace coming from them any time soon, and the more all of us try to paper it over with phony civility arguments the worse we’re going to make it. That just sends a signal that we’re cowards and in the dark about what they’re about.
Discsmasher
Actually, no less an extremist fringe element of the GOP than Mike Huckabee basically tried abortion to illegal immigration during the 2008 primaries by claiming that all the abortions by American women necessitated so many illegal immigrants coming to America to work the jobs that presumably otherwise would have been held by these unborn natives:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-seery/huckabee-immigrants-are-t_b_69576.html
One of the better Unified Wingnut Theories I’ve ever seen by a mainstream Republican.
BTW, I appreciated these “womb bigot” posts and, if anything, think #3 was a bit too restrained in light of the heavy criticism that accompanied the first two parts. This blog has always featured over the top snark, potty language, and funny nicknames for people with deranged opinions. Suddenly when it’s applied to loud and often violent anti-choicers everyone clutches their pearls?
KG
@30: no, not really serious. Just a smartass reaction to an asshole. Though, the thought that the Universe would work to remove assholes from the gene pool is somewhat comforting.
I know a lot of good people who couldn’t reproduce and a lot of bad people who could. So, really, just a visceral reaction to a particular brand of asshole.
TR
Well, now that’s a nice strawman you built.
I’m not at all concerned about the feelings of pro-life extremists. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I’m confident that broad generalizations and crude caricatures don’t hurt them in the slightest. Sure, it makes people on our side feel superior, but it doesn’t shame the specific people behind these crimes and it doesn’t bring the specific people who abetted and encouraged them to light and to justice.
Facts are on our side. Facts are our best weapon against the extremists. Facts will win this fight. Anything else is just mental masturbation.
I’m heading out, so flame away.
Mayken
@Matt:
My former uncle for one. My aunt married the bastard of all bastards and he actually said things like “can’t fool around on me if I keep you pregnant.” Needless to say she had never fooled around on him, she was too terrified. He thought of her as his property and by-god that meant she would carry “his” child. He also did tell her she was worthless and no man would ever have her especially with someone else’s “brat.” (Thanks gods she finally left his ass!)
And anyone who doesn’t know there are men who get really, really red-in-the-face, beat-you-to-a-bloody-pulp mad about the idea of a woman aborting “his” child has not been paying attention to the real world for a while. This is one of the reasons we pro-choicers will fight tooth and nail against spousal notice or consent laws.
Yes, this is an extreme and possibly a minority part of the movement but they do exist. Seriously, it may be hyperbole but it’s based on reality.
Scourge of Leftwingnuts
African-American women abort at a rate almost five times that of white women in the US. Latinas in the US abort at over two times the rate of white women in this country. The “racist anti-abortion” thesis just miscarried. But wait, could there just possibly be a racist component to some persons’ pro-abortion views?
Joey Maloney a/k/a The Bard Of Balloon Juice
@TR:
False equivalence. “Those people on the left” aren’t driving policy formulation at the highest levels of a major political party; they don’t get legislation passed at the state level on a regular basis that causes needless hardship and suffering to women. And most of all, they aren’t walking around loose committing terrorist violence against people and institutions.
scav
If only Facts were enough.
asiangrrlMN
Considering some of the remarks that were spewed on the abortion threads, I think Anne Laurie has hit the nail on the head with the Testicle Defenders. In fact, I find the entitlement of men to be a strong thread running through the entire anti-choice debate. I find this entry to be better written and more measured than the ones in the past.
Matt, the fact that many people (mostly women) on this thread can back what Anne Laurie is saying is an indication that maybe you are the one who needs to really see what is going on.
As for the “I had to settle for this” remark, more than easy for me to believe. I’ve had many friends who were adopted Koreans, and their lives were not easy at all. Most of them were stripped of their ethnicities in their names and in their environments. One didn’t even get to eat rice until she was eighteen. There are many kids who are not white or who are disabled in some fashion who are waiting for adoption because a majority of people who adopt want healthy white babies.
Genine
I do not think Anne is talking about the entire pro-life movement, just a certain subset. I thought that was clear, but I could be mistaken.
Also, her quotes aren’t misquotes at all. Just go to any MRA website and read through some comments. I know men who say such things. (One actually wanted to date me. He was shocked that I didn’t want him. **eyeroll**)
geg6
Seems a few of you missed the whole premise of these descriptions. It was all about the types of thugs that make up the crowds that inundate women’s health clinics that provide abortions. You know, the ones who assault and harass those going there for services, most often services that aren’t abortions. But heaven forbid we disrespect them in any way! Alternatively, they must think it’s a true cross section of pro-choicers who spend large swaths of their time screaming and waving bloody baby dolls in the streets for fun.
asiangrrlMN
@TR: Since when have facts ever won any fight? Have you seen the media on this subject? I would submit that many people involved in the anti-choice movement fit broadly into one of the categories listed by Anne Laurie. Trying to make them seem rational and just another side of the debate is not helping the pro-choice movement. It’s time to stop allowing them to frame the issue of abortion. I think ridicule is one important element in changing the frame. We need to point out how stupid this kind of thinking is. We can’t be afraid to say, “This makes no fucking sense.”
@scav: Ok. No fair. You said it much more concisely than did I.
YellowJournalism
Same thing happened to me, although my “friends” at the time were even more concerned about my entering into a marriage with a “non-Christian”. The friend who said that last part actually thought she was being diplomatic by using that term instead of just saying my husband’s religion. Of course, nothing beats a family member on my husband’s side calling our future children “half-breed”.
As far as the nasty way some men talk, I’ll throw in a “me too” on knowing men from school, through friends and family, and other places who would have said similar things to or about the women they were with.
LD50
Right. The same faction is also heavily represented among couples who take in foster children. That is, a fair sized chunk of the people who take in foster children for the state do so with an explicit plan to Christianize the kids who temporarily pass through their hands. My daughter passed thru two foster families before we got her, and the second one were hard core fundies who treated her like a third wheel and made no attempt to understand her or lessen her trauma, but they were very diligent indeed in exposing her to the Word of Jesus. In fact, they even trained her, as a 7-year-old, to announce to child welfare workers that she “had accepted Jesus as her personal savior”. This after they only had her for 2 months.
I would add as a postscript that now that my daughter’s an adolescent, she’s become extremely cynical about organized religion in any form. So sometimes attempted imprinting just plain fails.
geg6
I can only say that I’ve rarely seen better illustration of the fact that some men have no idea whatsoever what women deal with on a daily basis. Not all men, just some who must not have a lot of female relatives or such friends and relatives who have ever discussed the indignities women so often face. I must remember that some people live sheltered lives and try to educate them.
Margarita
I’m not suggesting that the sentiment is an urban myth. I’m suggesting that the particular anecdote has a prominent red flag commonly associated with urban myths. And I think it’s telling that several others sensed the same thing.
Whether it’s true or not, something that inflammatory really should be more firmly sourced. Setting off bullshit detectors, even false alarms, is not the best rhetorical strategy.
Chris Johnson
Yup, it’s terser- thanks :)
It’s still incendiary- suffice to say, show me a real person who acts like those cartoony characterisations and I’ll call that person a complete asshole. Show me such a person in a position of legislative or judiciary power and I’ll go OH SHI- and do what I can against them.
To my mind, however, we have law enforcement and a wide variety of social services ‘cops’ because such people exist and are not expected to be calling the shots. You’ve got a higher bar to clear if you want to imply that such attitudes are SYSTEMIC.
Failing that your responses will be more like “Fine, a complete asshole exists. So?”
LD50
YUP. The child welfare system is loaded with nonwhites, disabled kids, older kids (4+), or sibling sets. If you ever see your state’s list of foster children available for adoption (like I spent a year doing), it’s a real eye-opener.
TenguPhule
Who was that GOP female rep peddling FEMA concentration camps?
TenguPhule
I object.
This disparages innocent testes.
Can we call them Infected Prostates instead?
Cackalacka
Straw? Man? I believe I’ve read enough Operation Rescue-esque “Who will rid me of this meddlesome murdering abortionist… oh gee, someone get me a Guiness and chickenwangs, and please don’t let the violent irrationality of some of our colleagues draw attention to the fact that this dead soul was a meddlesome murdering abortionist” this week. Anyway, there is enough of that on the googles to provide my little straw man with enough flesh and blood to not have to go visit the man behind the curtain to have an actual heart. Your passionate concern for dialogue in the face of violence is noted.
I guess we can all be thankful Ms. Laurie didn’t say this awful, awful things to pro-lifers when they were walking into church. Now THAT’s mental masturbation.
Matt
And you know that how? Here’s a novel idea, perhaps the reason I don’t endorse these childish caricatures is because I do know what its like to look in the face of a man who just beat his wife, or that my family grew in that part of the country that took pride in hiding Eric Rudolph, and that I do volunteer at a women’s shelter helping to collect used cell phones so that women can get away from their abusive dipshit husbands. Maybe, just maybe, I don’t transform the people who perpetrate these heinous crimes on women into cartoons, is because I take them serious, and know that there are not clowns, and Penis Defenders, or Testicle Marauder, or some such nonsense. These are real people and we should deal with them, and discuss them that way. Any other way lessens their crimes.
Brachiator
@someguy:
This kinda reminds me of some gays who would get all snobby and snarky, dismissing heterosexuals as breeders.
Until they had children of their own.
Sweet Bean Pie Jesus. Armchair revolutionaries imagining themselves to be Malcolm X.
Scott
“Because of you people, I had to settle for this!”
That’s actually pretty heartbreaking. Can you imagine growing up in a household where your adoptive parents actually and literally despise you?
LD50
I don’t see anything wrong with that.
jp
“As it is, they’re reduced to dreaming of a Golden Age when healthy white American teenagers who “got in trouble” had very little choice but to “give up” their by-blows to be raised by decent, God-fearing middle-class white married couples.”
This sentence reminds me of why I fucking hated the film *Juno.*
binzinerator
@Annie Laurie
This seems a sub-genre of the type, from a reader of Sully‘s.
Secretly rage? Nothing secret about what’s behind these so-called ‘right-to-life’ mutherfuckers. These people simply can’t mind their own fucking business. Fuck these pissants.
These people simply refuse to accept it’s someone else’s body, someone else’s choice, and that they have no right to have a say in it.
TR
Alright, I’m back.
First and foremost, thanks for all the people who referred me to MRA. I’d never heard of them before and clearly should have. And their existence — and my ignorance of them — only cements my argument. If these people exist, why not talk about them, why no quote them, why not shame them? How is it more effective to make a slightly exaggerated fictional version of them, when a very quotable, very real version exists?
So you don’t disagree with me at all? I’m not saying they’re rational. Not in the slightest. I’m saying they’re real and they’re saying insane things, so let’s actually cite the insane real things they’re saying.
That approach will convince the media to change the narrative. I’ve seen Randall Terry’s words thrown back at him lately, where they never did before. But I haven’t seen any of the media citing the figments of Anne’s imagination here.
For all the people who think — despite my repeated efforts to make it clear — that I’m somehow worried that we’re being too mean to these poor pro-life people, let me say it just one more time:
You may think these caricatures are a devastating attack. They’re not. You’re essentially throwing water balloons and spitballs at these assholes, and they’re going to laugh them off — or worse, use them to justify their belief that “the other side” of this issue is “just a bunch of moonbats.”
If you want to bring the pain to these assholes (figuratively), then you need to put aside the giant paper mache puppets and the hyperbolic caricatures and the over-the-top made-up nonsense, and hit them back with their words and their deeds. That’s what they’re scared of. That’s how they get ostracized and marginalized from the national discourse.
Crucify these assholes on a cross of their own making.
Is that clear? You all may think you’re being all tough and badass by taking down strawmen, but the real assholes out there aren’t going to be affected. In the slightest.
And the moderates and independents and fence-sitters we need to bring over to our side to protect abortion rights and get these maniacs classified as terrorists as they really are? They’re going to hear talk about “womb bigots” and “testicle defenders” and roll their eyes. “Both sides are nuts,” they’ll say and wash their hands of it all.
My point exactly. Thank you.
Look, this is like reducing racism to just the Bull Connors of the world. Yes, the racist segregationist sheriffs exist, but if you make Bull Connor the reigning definition of racism, then you let all the other garden variety racists — who are much more pervasive and much more subtle — off the hook. As long as they never took a firehose to schoolchildren, they’re don’t reach his standard, right?
Caricatures don’t hurt their side. They hurt ours.
binzinerator
@Scott:
It seems old and trite, but it’s so damned true: For these kind of people life begins at conception and ends at birth.
Value a blastocyst? They’d shoot you in the back over it or cheer the one who did.
Value their adopted child? Not so much.
Disgusting vile warped people. Fuck them.
HyperIon
I’m going to limit my comment to the writing in the post, not the ideas expressed therein.
I’m not a big fan of snark. I know, how retro of me. But given that snark free posts are relatively rare here at BJ, I will merely say that I do not think it effective writing to craft such a snarky initial sentence. I read it several times, trying to make sense of it, then gave up, concluding that the snark was so strong, it obliterated any possible meaning. I was not then much inclined to read on…because I come here for the entertainment, not overwrought writing.
TR
Alright, I’m back.
First and foremost, thanks for all the people who referred me to MRA. I’d never heard of them before and clearly should have. And their existence—and my ignorance of them—only cements my argument. If these people exist, why not talk about them, why no quote them, why not shame them? How is it more effective to make a slightly exaggerated fictional version of them, when a very quotable, very real version exists?
So you don’t disagree with me at all? I’m not saying they’re rational. Not in the slightest. I’m saying they’re real and they’re saying insane things, so let’s actually cite the insane real things they’re saying.
That approach will convince the media to change the narrative. I’ve seen Randall Terry’s words thrown back at him lately, where they never did before. But I haven’t seen any of the media citing the figments of Anne’s imagination here.
TR
For all the people who think—despite my repeated efforts to make it clear—that I’m somehow worried that we’re being too mean to these poor pro-life people, let me say it just one more time:
You may think these caricatures are a devastating attack. They’re not. You’re essentially throwing water balloons and spitballs at these assholes, and they’re going to laugh them off—or worse, use them to justify their belief that “the other side” of this issue is “just a bunch of moonbats.”
If you want to bring the pain to these assholes (figuratively), then you need to put aside the giant paper mache puppets and the hyperbolic caricatures and the over-the-top made-up nonsense, and hit them back with their words and their deeds. That’s what they’re scared of. That’s how they get ostracized and marginalized from the national discourse.
Crucify these assholes on a cross of their own making.
Is that clear? You all may think you’re being all tough and badass by taking down strawmen, but the real assholes out there aren’t going to be affected. In the slightest.
And the moderates and independents and fence-sitters we need to bring over to our side to protect abortion rights and get these maniacs classified as terrorists as they really are? They’re going to hear talk about “womb bigots” and “testicle defenders” and roll their eyes. “Both sides are nuts,” they’ll say and wash their hands of it all.
My point exactly. Thank you.
Look, this is like reducing racism to just the Bull Connors of the world. Yes, the racist segregationist sheriffs exist, but if you make Bull Connor the reigning definition of racism, then you let all the other garden variety racists—who are much more pervasive and much more subtle—off the hook. As long as they never took a firehose to schoolchildren, they’re don’t reach his standard, right?
Caricatures don’t hurt their side. They hurt ours.
TR
For all the people who think—despite my repeated efforts to make it clear—that I’m somehow worried that we’re being too mean to these poor pro-life people, let me say it just one more time:
You may think these caricatures are a devastating attack. They’re not. You’re essentially throwing water balloons and spitballs at these assholes, and they’re going to laugh them off—or worse, use them to justify their belief that “the other side” of this issue is “just a bunch of moonbats.”
If you want to bring the pain to these assholes (figuratively), then you need to put aside the giant paper mache puppets and the hyperbolic caricatures and the over-the-top made-up nonsense, and hit them back with their words and their deeds. That’s what they’re scared of. That’s how they get ostracized and marginalized from the national discourse.
Crucify these assholes on a cross of their own making.
Is that clear? You all may think you’re being all tough and badass by taking down strawmen, but the real assholes out there aren’t going to be affected. In the slightest.
And the moderates and independents and fence-sitters we need to bring over to our side to protect abortion rights and get these maniacs classified as terrorists as they really are? They’re going to hear talk about “womb bigots” and “testicle defenders” and roll their eyes. “Both sides are nuts,” they’ll say and wash their hands of it all.
TR
My point exactly. Thank you.
Look, this is like reducing racism to just the Bull Connors of the world. Yes, the racist segregationist sheriffs exist, but if you make Bull Connor the reigning definition of racism, then you let all the other garden variety racists—who are much more pervasive and much more subtle—off the hook. As long as they never took a firehose to schoolchildren, they’re don’t reach his standard, right?
Caricatures don’t hurt their side. They hurt ours.
TR
John and Co. — not sure what I did in the last section of my long comment to get it into moderation, but sorry for the multiple efforts to get it through. Feel free to delete the duplicates.
Ugh, and now I see they’ve all been cleared. Sorry for the mess. Please keep comment 73 and sweep away the rest. Thanks!
Genine
Margarita-
True, you have a point there. I agree.
Emma
So let’s see: calling her an exaggerator, insinuating she’s a liar, and correcting her approach to writing … overwrought… caricature… and when other women support what she’s saying writing it off because “they are the ones who take those people seriously”.
Sheesh. And we’re the liberals?
Joey Maloney a/k/a The Bard Of Balloon Juice
@TR:
So you’re saying it’s actually central to your point?
HyperIon
the term “mental masturbation” has been used with increasing frequency at the blog in the last week or so.
would someone please explain WTF is meant by “but that is just mental masturbation”?
thanks.
bellatrys
Some of those non-existent caricatures and straw men.
More of them.
No sexism here, move along
And more of the same, from the moderation queue – completely typical of what most feminist blogs deal with on a regular basis.
Also, as I discovered last year, I’m one handshake away from one of the successful clinic killers – several times over. The New York Right-To-Life Party’s candidate several elections running was a frequent guest of my family. The sort of cognitive dissonance required to be able to say, all in one breath, “We revere and love women and just want to protect them from the evil lying environmentalist-abortionists trying to slaughter humanity – unless they’re selfish lying Eves who DESERVE to die from a botched abortion for murdering their helpless babies” – is something I struggle with to this day, having been reared on it from my earliest years (seriously, I was carrying anti-abortion picket signs when I was a *preschooler*, there are family album photos).
I *know* that all the talk of “vanity abortions” and “shoulda kept her legs shut” and “abortion mills” and “greedy
Jewishabortion doctors” and “aborted French babies being ground up to make cosmetics” and “the Pill is an abortifacient” are BS, just like all the talk by my elders about “What would YOU do if you lived down the street from Dachau?” that made me start contemplating how to burn down the local PP when I was in HS was just blather (the way Slacktivist lays out with extreme clarity). But my hindbrain doesn’t, even still.Joey Maloney a/k/a The Bard Of Balloon Juice
The brain is the largest sexual organ.
Das Internetkommissariat
I wonder what these asshats are going to do against medication abortion. And by that I do not only mean the-morning-after-pill but the upcoming trend to abort pregnancies using medication.
Read this here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/women-on-waves-abortion-p_n_212009.html
HyperIon
@TR:
But don’t discount the warm feeling some folks here get, murmuring to themselves, “Yeah, right on!”
These posts are about preaching to the choir. Some members of the choir are really enjoying the sermon, others, not so much.
Edit: TR, how did you get your first block quote to NOT be bolded?
TR
Essentially.
Pro-life extremists are real. There’s no need to use our imaginations here, when real accounts of their real deeds will be infinitely more effective in discrediting them.
No idea. Sometimes with multiple blockquotes, it relaxes the bold. But as my multiple post failure shows, I know nothing about how to format things here correctly.
TR
Makes you feel good, but accomplishes nothing. See also “intellectual masturbation.”
Genine
TR-
I actually agree with your overall point. When I do engage in debate I stay away from insult. I work to be reasonable. I make gentle nuanced arguments and those get me further than yelling at people do.
But, sometimes, you just get mad and that anger needs to be expressed- full throttle. Then one can, if he or she chooses, go back to reasonable, nuanced debate.
My objection to some of the comments is that some people think Anne is making these people up. Unfortunately, she isn’t.
My other objection is that some people seem to think she is talking about the entire pro-life movement. My understanding is that she is not. She is talking about the subset of the pro-life movement that endorses and calls for violence. Harass, assault and threaten women outside of clinics. And those that kill doctors and blow-up clinics. Those people are not the majority of the pro-life movement. I have some pro-life friends and wouldn’t characterize them as such. I would object to someone who did, but that is not the case here.
TenguPhule
See the war against pharmacies and “moral refusal to supply”
TR
Actually, my point isn’t about tone — if you’ve been here long enough, you’ll know I drop the f-bomb at the drop of a hat.
It’s precisely because I’m so angry at these people that I want the attacks on them to be as effective as possible, and in my opinion, the most effective way to strike back at them is to take their dog-whistle hatred that is normally only meant for the true believers, and expose it to the wider world so that they’re driven from polite society and national politics like the pariahs they should be.
I think the exaggerations are a significant problem, but fair enough.
Again, my whole point is that these people really do exist, so why bother making stuff up? It’s not a more effective form of argument, in my opinion, and the anonymity of the form only lets the specific people who are making these claims off the hook.
The Raven
TR, you objected to AL’s categories without checking facts–without having done research. When facts were provided, you switched to objecting to AL’s rhetoric. Now you object that if specific quotes were provided, they would persuade the media. Now, in fact, those quotes have always–literally always–been available to anyone willing to listen. But there are easier sources. Starting in the 1970s, there has been a huge amount of material published on this. Not in obscure places and some of it peer-reviewed. The media just hasn’t been reporting it, or has been badly distorting it. You still haven’t done your research. Why are you still arguing?
Bored now. Krawk!
DP
I hope that first one isn’t true for the child’s sake. We adopted an Asian baby of a deceased college friend. I couldn’t love him more, regardless of whether he looks like me or not. Adoption isn’t for the adopter; it’s for the child.
Genine
If these people exist and say these things… how are they exaggerations?
If AL was making an argument, you would be right. I see these posts as an expression of anger at a small section of the movement. The same rules do not apply.
Nate
Anne, if this post really is just preaching to the choir or letting off some steam, you’re entitled to that just like anyone else and we can take it for what it is. But if you really think that talking like this is your attempt to “look at these issues and discuss them honestly” then you are full of shit; no better than pro-lifers ranting and frothing about baby-killers and dancing on Tiller’s grave. You are one and the same.
Emma
Congratulations Anne, you have “arrived”: nothing like being mau-maued by your own side. And we wonder why Republicans always end up eating our lunch.
Llelldorin
@HyperIon:
Mental masturbation is basically writing bad fanfic about a political debate. You argue for yourself and for your enemies, giving them stupid and easily demolished arguments, bad teeth, and faintly demonic visages. You then destroy them in debate, and a few stunningly attractive people who had been deluded into supporting the opposite side come to you afterwards, weeping and begging forgiveness. You forgive them. The glances linger, and begin to smolder…
You get the idea. Just as with the real thing, everyone does it, but it’s generally best done in privacy.
That said, I loved this post. Over-the-top rage is appropriate in the face of an act of political terrorism, and where better than in a friendly blog?
TR
Sweet fucking Christ, it’s like you people are being willfully dense.
Forget it. Enjoy the circle jerk. But if you’re driving away people like me — liberals who have donated repeatedly to NARAL and marched repeatedly for pro-choice causes — you are engaging an an epic fucking fail.
I’m done.
The Raven
Exuent “nice” guy, not pursued by a raven and a crowd of angry women.
But this discussion brings something else to mind. There’s a point over in the recent Neiwert/Robinson/Perlstein video (I’m on the end of a very slow internet connection right now, or I’d give the link and time) where Sara Robinson discusses explaining this kind of terrorism to the author of What’s the Matter with Kansas. She reports that–Frank, is it?–was surprised by her reports of extremism. I remember, decades ago, being outraged by the reality of violent sexism. Decades later, I am still outraged. A lot of people are now experiencing that outrage for the first time, and there’s a lot of people still going through the denial that is a common first reaction.
I sometimes end up wondering if there was anything I could have done to avoid alienating someone like TR. But I’ve done polite. It doesn’t persuade, and sometimes it even becomes complicity.
The Raven
One of the realities that AL is pointing up by characterizing destructive anti-abortion activists is that they are not simply individual “bad apples.” Rather, this is a social movement, with social motivations, and these can be understood. That’s a hard point to make, and one that seems to be very difficult to accept. What happened to Dr. Tiller did not happen in isolation, any more than Abu Ghraib was the initiative of a few low-level personnel.
Matt
What a bunch of bullshit. TR was not asking anybody to be polite, he said why don’t we use these people’s words against them rather than indulging in our fanatsies of who these people are. There was a lot you could do to not alienate TR and myself, you could actually read what we write. If you want to indulge your fantasies about how pro-life extremists are cartoonish terrorists then go ahead, but that doesn’t mean you get let of the hook for it. TR was begging you guys to treat these extremists as real individuals, not insidious buffoons. You know what? Randall Terry acts like a clown and a womb bigot, fine I said it. But he’s not stupid our cartoonish; this is a man that mobilizes other people to terrorize their fellow citizens. My reason for objecting to Anne’s characterizations doesn’t stem from some need to excuse their behavior, or to play nice with people that throw bombs. It comes from the realization that no matter how awful, cruel, and evil these people are, they are not the figments of someone’s overheated imagination. If it makes you feel better to call them womb bigots, fine, do it until the cows come home. But don’t for a second think that this type of characterization advances anything. If you think that you’ve wasted too much time being nice, then what does this alternative really achieve? If pro-lifers cannot change your position by calling you a murderer or women whores, then what the use of calling them womb bigots? Do you really think that you can shame these people into agreeing with you, or putting down their bombs? Just because we all agree with Anne’s overall point doesn’t mean I, or anybody has to agree with her methodology. And if disagreeing with Anne represents mau-mauing then what our side wants is lock step uniformity just like the pro-lifers, its my belief that we should caution against going down this road.
PK
Really? Last time I checked, republicans were heading down the road to oblivion.
When I see operation rescue types on TV, they look like normal people who say and do incredibly evil things.
When I read Anne, they sound like cartoon villains in a comic book. The only thing missing is the mustache twirling and the evil laughter.
Shell Goddamnit
WHAT?? Nooooo! I must believe you but I hate hate hate the idea that someone who could say this could be in charge of this baby. Hell, my middle-aged childless no-experience lazy ass would be a better choice. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN??
Argh.
Bender
“It just goes to show you can’t be too careful!”
The Raven
Matt, before I wrote #94, I went back and reread TR. He did exactly what I said. He didn’t have his facts straight, and so wasn’t credible.
Understanding the roles people take in a social movement is part of a response to that movement. The claim of individuality is, paradoxically, sometimes an evasion of responsibility. The ticket-taker at a movie theater is an individual, but they’re also doing a job, and in that their behavior is stereotypical. In like manner, people in social movements are individuals, but they are also take on roles. Soldier are individuals and have individual reasons, but they are still soldiers. And when someone undertakes to kill doctors for political reasons, it doesn’t matter how “individual” they are; they are a murderer and a terrorist.
Blue Raven
I remain unsurprised that men who would call themselves good feminists are the ones giving Anne the most shit here. TR and Matt, both of you are acting like you’re so much better than the rest of us because you do time in what you think are the trenches or throw money at the problem, but the gods forfend a woman who has a gut-level comprehension of the issue in a way you will never possess express her anger as she chooses. You do NOT get to tell us how to express our rage when it is our bodies on the line and not yours. That is what you are doing. Cut the shit already. You haven’t earned that status and never will.
Marc
It’s “exit” not “exeunt”: singular not plural. (You are apparently bad at dead languages too.)
Enjoy your ideologically pure movement, free from all the allies you’re alienating. The rallies will be much smaller, but on the bright side, you probably will find it easier to get a parking spot at them.
geg6
Blue Raven, you hit the nail on the head. In addition, the assumption seems to be that all of us who agree with AL just sit around kvetching and snarking while they are bravely manning the front lines that we somehow are undermining with our bitching. To that, I say fuck you. I have fought this fight for over 30 years, volunteering, marching, canvassing and voting, and braving the nuts characterized by AL in order to get treatment or accompany a friend. I really don’t understand what the complaint about this is. What, we must always say a particular name with a specific quote or the point is stupid or useless? Stereotypes are always completely false and should never be used? That we just shouldn’t ever talk about anti-choicers and the actions? The objections make no sense unless the point is that we should just STFU. That may not be the intention but that’s sure how it feels.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
Murder may be the number-one cause of death for pregnant women in America
That’s an absolutely horrifying statistic.
It’s suspect – the link given doesn’t seem to have a date, and cites sources only up to 1998. It seems to be based on information such as this link:
A more recent press piece states:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that homicide is a leading cause of traumatic death among new and expectant mothers, with higher risks for women who are younger than 20 or black. It was the CDC’s first national look at pregnancy and homicide.
The study, which was released yesterday and appears in the March issue of the American Journal of Public Health, documents 617 slayings from 1991 to 1999. That number significantly understates the actual toll because many states do not have reliable methods for tracking such deaths, researchers said.
The CDC study was lauded by several public health experts for recognizing an overlooked phenomenon. Using data from more than 30 states, the CDC found that homicide ranked second, after auto accidents, among trauma deaths of pregnant women and new mothers. The study looked only at “injury deaths” and drew no comparison to deaths from medical causes.
The piece notes numbers vary, and tracking is poor. It states that homicide accounted for 31 percent of maternal injury deaths. I couldn’t quite find an easy source that broke down deaths by age and sex, but homicide is a pretty major cause of death for the 15-44 range as a whole. And note it talks about injury deaths – I believe it excludes complications from the pregnancy itself – if you’re pregnant, this is more likely to kill you.
The horrifying bit about the different death rates for black and white women and ages suggest that it is a concentrated problem. Young, black mothers get murdered. White women get murdered less, and older women less still.
Marc
If you’ll actually read what TR and Matt wrote, they only mention their involvement when they were challenged that they apparently knew nothing about the abortion issue. They were challenged to prove it, and they did. And for that, they’re apparently saying that *you* don’t get involved and that they know better? OK, then.
Clearly. You might try reading what they actually wrote, for starters.
Anyway, congratulations on creating a liberal counterpart to the conservative outrage machine. We can now look forward to endless rounds of them shouting “feminazi” and “whore” at you, and you shouting “womb bigot” and “testicle defender” and them, and the rest of the nation changing the channel. Bravo.
Michael
Anne, I’m reminded of an episode with my partner’s idiot brother several years ago.
He’s a vile prick, a huge Irish-American clinic protestor who prays in Latin, curses in ways that makes a foul mouthed jerk like me blush, and is, of course, a raging alcoholic.
He and his wife wanted a baby, but it had to be a white one, because he was just adamant about it being white – a black baby, an asian baby, a hispanic baby was out of the question. My job was to help him out on the paperwork end.
We had a falling out when it became clear that I disapproved of the racial desires of “Mr. Pro-Life Warrior”.
Interestingly, his brother took my side of the imbroglio.
Margarita
First, that may be the problem. The series comes off primarily as an expression of rage rather than what one is more used to seeing and probably looking for here. I’m still grappling with how the pet pix and meal-blogging advance the cause too, but they’re harder to mistake for failed satire or social commentary and are almost certainly not counter-productive.
Second, if Anne is going to publish her writing, then her writing (read: how she expresses her rage) will be criticized. Don’t be a bully.
Others have expressed appreciation for the belligerent, shotgun vilification though. So something for everyone!
Marc
OK, let’s run with that analogy.
What’s a better way to show how Abu Ghraib went much broader than the Lynndie Englands who were tried, and to make sure the real architects of torture are held accountable for their crimes and brought to justice?
(a) Writing posts about how Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney sit around saying things like “Ooh, my penis is so small and I have to shoot a big gun and abuse prisoners to make up for it!” and saying the military is just full of men who channel their repressed homosexual urges into acts of forced sodomy
(b) Documenting the authorizations of White House officials for waterboarding detainees, tracking the claims of Yoo and Gonzalez on the legal end of things, and exposing the pressure Cheney brought to bear on interrogators to force a 9/11-Iraq connection in their confessions
Let’s see….. I’m going to go with (b).
Mayken
@ Marc, Matt, TR et al – Snark, satire, cartoon and caricature: these types of political expressions have their place in our social discourse, even about, maybe especially about, very serious subject. Yes, we understand that these particular instances don’t work for you. Clearly they do for some. And, yes, very serious arguments designed to persuade the moderates and the thinking conservative are important, but so are over the top snarky rants designed to make us laugh (or cringe, whatever.)
A lot of us got a kick out of these posts and it made us feel good to share in the rage without doing any real harm to anyone. And it did spark some very interesting conversations.
As for issues of this not helping or having quotes pulled out to make us look bad – there is not one single thing that the pro-choice movement has ever done that has not been twisted into a freak/horror show by the rabid anti-choicers. Not one. We can be reasonable and rational or we can rant and rave, either way the haters and the political hacks will take what we say or do out of context and twist it into something that makes us look bad. Should that really stop us from speaking out?
Marc
Maybe this is the problem with these posts, in that they’re neither fully satirical nor fully serious.
I mean, just look at the people who’ve been defending them. Half of AL’s defenders here are insisting that what she’s written is nearly a verbatim transcript of these people, the gospel truth, and we need to recognize the serious reality of what she says here, because they’re no caricature at all. And the other half are saying this is just satire and ridicule, and the caricatures are to be read as broad generalizations on purpose. Which is it?
You can do both at once, of course. The bloggers at Sadly, No! are probably the best exemplars of this union, in that their posts usually begin with actual quotes from wingnuts and then riff on them to an absurdist extreme, and to great effect. But AL’s posts have been half hearted efforts in both directions. There’s just enough caricature and anonymity granted to her subjects to rob them of their reality, and at the same time there is just enough seriousness and rage to make the rants not that funny.
Sorry, as currently constituted, it just seems like Ann Coulter’s schtick. Over the top character assassinations that don’t do anything to win her allies but drive the already-converted into a fury of rage. But when she gets called on the insanity, her critics are told “Lighten up, it’s just a joke!” I hate it when their side does it, and I hate it when our side does it too.
Marc
Looking back on AL’s coda:
So it seems that snark and satire aren’t her goal at all.
AL, if you want to deal with “contentious issues” and “discuss them honestly” I’m all ears.
But don’t make the mistake of assuming that your critics are upset because you’re talking about serious issues. Your critics are upset because you’re dealing with serious issues in an unserious way.
It falls short of genuine satire (and that seems not to be your goal, anyway) and with the histrionics, it falls short of “talking seriously” too.
Grendel72
Enjoy your ideologically pure movement, free from all the allies you’re alienating.
“So we’ll just take our ball and go home! Nyah!”
It’s touching to see how devoted to the ideals of defending women’s freedom you are. So very devoted that you will hold your support as a weapon against those who actually face the violence and hatred.
This is an argument I’ve seen endlessly from white heterosexual men who think everyone else owes their freedom to them, and don’t you dare forget it.
The Raven
Matt, that’s a reasonable question, but the situation is different. The Abu Ghraib was war crimes; this is terrorism. There’s no court case to be built against most of the anti-abortion movement–that’s one of AL’s points, in fact. But knowing something about the people who make up the anti-abortion movement, and how they relate–that’s valuable. BTW, you seem to be missing that AL’s descriptions are based in attention to real people; they’re sharp, but not entirely unsympathetic.
And I’ve done picking at the carcass of this dead horse.
Marc
I’m so devoted that I’ll take the time and effort to propose ways in which the movement might broaden its base of support, reach out and attract ever more supporters, and isolate and diminish its opposition, even when I know it means I’ll get ridiculed and shouted out by the Purer Than Me like yourself.
Sure, I could have stood here and said “HA! Testicle Defenders! Megadittos, Rushette!” and joined in the back-slapping. But instead I and others tried to offer suggestions for how that message might be refined and improved, and were flamed mercilessly like we were right-wing trolls.
So, yea, if that’s how we’re going to be treated by defenders of the movement — if they’re going to constantly shout that we don’t understand it, that we don’t get to have an opinion, that we don’t get to offer an idea, then yes, the movement can go fuck itself.
And so can you, asshole.
Matt
What unmitigated bullshit. Because I, TR, and Marc disagree with Anne’s methodology, we become part of the same style of masculinity that she parodies? It what universe can someone draw the above conclusion based on what we’ve written? Where in any thing I have written have I alluded to the idea that everyone owes their freedom to me? Have you been watching A Few Good Men lately? Are you sure this argument that you’ve seen “endlessly” isn’t just happening in the darkest recesses of your brain? Is this what it means by “man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”? But in this case you haven’t actually heard anything that comes close to your conclusion.
I would call Grendel a jackass, but I’d hate to offend jackasses.
Grendel72
Guess what, some people can’t just “walk away.”
If you [i]really[/i] gave a shit you wouldn’t threaten to. So you’d rather let women bleed out in a back alley if some of them get angry at bigots.
And yes, this is an argument that is constantly used by faux progressives to silence aggrieved parties. If you get angry at bigots we won’t support your cause! If you get angry at bigots you’re just as bad as they are!
Marc
Grendel, maybe you should go find an adult to help you re-read what we’ve been saying.
None of us have been complaining because we think you’re being too mean to the poor widdle pro-life extremists. We’ve been complaining because we feel that using outlandish caricatures is a pathetic, weak way to attack the pro-life extremists. It doesn’t hurt them in the slightest, it doesn’t nail them on their own deeds, and it provides them a blanket of anonymity that we’d prefer them not to have.
Since you seem to have the reading comprehension skills of Jonah Goldberg, let me repost some of our writing:
Matt:
TR:
Got it?
We’re as angry as you are, and it’s not that we’re upset that you’re hurting the pro-lifers’ feelings with your big bad cartoonish drawings of them. It’s that we see you throwing spitballs at their tanks, strutting around like you’ve accomplished something, and we’re trying to hand you a bazooka.
You’re drawing cartoons and passing them around in class, snickering like fifth-grade shits. We’d rather draw up warrants and lawsuits against these fucks and get them for real.
And seriously, if you’re concerned about protecting the right of a woman to choose as you claim to be in your lame peacock posturing, then you’d know that the more allies you have, the more donations you have, the broader political coalitions you have, the safer those rights will be.
But no! you’d rather let a woman bleed out in an alley than check your ego and your emotion at the door and do the hard work of coalition building.
MH
Concern troll has OVER 9000 concerns!
Linden
Yes Anne, I’m as angry as you are, but I’ll just take a moment to scold you for your writing. Scold scold scold.
How dare you illustrate your point with an anectode that may or may not have happened, and with sentiments that many women here say they’ve encountered, but to my objective ears sound like exaggeration and hyperbole?
A doctor may have been murdered, leaving only two more to provide his services for the entire country; President Obama might have reacted forcefully by putting a pro-life person in a position of power; the eliminationists might have stepped up their campaign of violence and intimidation; but you have sharp, unkind words that might upset an on-the-fence pro-life person hanging out at Balloon juice!
You might find yourself at risk of death due to lack of access to care, but don’t you know the Republicans are losing?
Now shut up and let us tell you how not to alienate people from your cause, ladies.