The ideal woman in the right wing pantheon
There was a minor amount of fussing a couple weeks ago at a site that proposed that anti-choice women were hotter than pro-choice women based on a pre-selected batch of photos. What alarmed me was while those on the side of common sense noted that beauty is subjective, and especially that the photos were hand-picked to make the guy’s case, few noted that the significant difference between the anti-choicers and pro-choicers pictured was an age difference of about 10 years, with the anti-choicers approaching the pre-pubescent John Derbyshire ideal. In fact, many of the women on the supposed “not hot” list are stunningly beautiful, but not, I suppose, if you’re looking at them through the eyes of someone who’s mostly aroused at the idea of untouched virginity. It’s something I think they need to be called out on and frequently, because it’s creepy.
Putting teenage girls front and center at anti-choice marches is a deliberate tactic that achieves two major goals–first off is the standard Heritage Foundation tactic of appointing members of the group whose rights are being targeted up front as spokesmen. (Toddle over to today’s Townhall and witness Star Parker chastising those who felt that Coretta Scott King’s funeral should have been about honoring her instead of handing over her legacy to conservatives to be cynically used to convince voters that black people don’t want equality.) The second, and equally important, reason for the tactic is to make the right wing look like it has at its command an army of nubile virgins who hold no truck with evil feminists who want them to be over-educated, over-sexed and over-opinionated.
Second only to fetuses in the pantheon of patriachal fetish objects are teenage girls, especially the white, virginal ones. The lives and the rights of teenage girls has been the major battle zone between feminists and anti-feminists for a long time now, mostly because anti-feminists have correctly identified the fact that teenage girls’ minor status makes them eligible to be controlled by the government more than adult women. But even accounting for that, the level of interest in shoehorning all teenage girls into a very narrow role should be setting off people’s creep alarms.
Exhibit A is the Army of Nubile Virgins that are put at the front of anti-choice demonstrations. Exhibit B, then, has got to be the obsession with miseducating teenagers about sex with the high hopes that they won’t have it, saturated with the glee that those who do have sex will be thoroughly punished with pregnancy. (With a dose of hoping for a return to the 50s when teenage pregnancy rates drove up the teenage marriage rate.) This particular right wing obsession reached a fever pitch of strangeness recently when Phil Kline, the attorney general of Kansas, had to parse out exactly what kind of sexual conduct he considered beyond the pale for teenagers, i.e. what kind of touching leads to permanent despoilage of the American Virgin. Strangest moment? Kline seemed to indicate that he thought a little bit of going down was okay for girls to do, just not boys, an assertion that alone could create a series of blog posts trying to untangle, but suffice it to say it inclined me to think that the guiding principle behind his campaign is wiping out any behavior that’s scandalously pleasurable for the female half of the equation.
Exhibit C: The latest flurry over the supposed crime that it is that teenage girls are outperforming the boys in school. While those of us on the feminist side aren’t exactly thrilled with this, our solution of teaching boys to be better in school has been dismissed out of hand by right wing punditry who prefer the solution of simply giving boys a head start over girls and getting teachers to be easier on boys than girls about late homework, acting out in class, etc. In other words, it’s fine that girls should be meek and well-behaved, but that behavior shouldn’t be personally rewarding for them, since girls are being raised that way for the benefit of future husbands. The main thing is using the schools to exagerrate gender differences.
Exhibit D: John Derbyshire. Ew.
I could probably go on and on, but I’m sure you’re grossed out enough. But I think the evidence is sufficient enough at this point to come right out and say it–the right wing fantasy that feminists are being blamed for destroying is the nubile, compliant virgin. And when we see instances of conservatives fretting over the loss of this fantasy and/or trying to pass laws forcing it back into existence, we should call them out for what they’re doing in clear, unmistakeable, “that’s disgusting” language.
Because as cute as the image of the teenage bride in white is, the girl in the dress is her own person, not a toy to be played with in the push to return this country to an idealized version of the 1950s.
Note to conservatives: It was only a movie.
113 Responses to “Barely legal XXXtian girls”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m proud to say that my daughter aged 11 complained to me the other day about how most of the other girls at school just want to talk about fashion. She’s well on the way to being non-compliant to consumerist sexbotism, so yahboosucks to the patriarchy. Mostly done through snarking at the most outrageous sexbot displays on TV and answering the occasional serious question bluntly.
The first thing I noticed about that guy’s “hot” anti-choice girls vs. “ugly” pro-choice girls was that the pro-choice girls looked like they had a shitload of personality, while the anti-choice ones seemed like they had their hair blown out and were probably on their way to go see the latest Lindsay Lohan movie after the march. Also they mostly looked kind of vapid and clueless, if I remember correctly, or more accurately just disinterested (?) It’s been a while since I looked it out and I’m having trouble opening the page again right now.
Of course, having more personality and being more individualistic person would logically coincide with being older (ie getting out of high school). One of the best illustrations of your point, Amanda, is that zombie explicitly refers to the anti-choicers as being “gals” and the pro-choicers “womyn” - and while I know that the use of the y was supposed to be mocking, it still means he considers the pro-choicers to be adults and the anti-choicers, well…trivial, cute young things.
I’d bet that you would be singing a different tune if you were not so close to your pull date yourself.
“The latest flurry over the supposed crime that it is that for the first time ever, teenage girls are outperforming teenage boys in school.”
Girls have been getting better grades than boys for decades.
I have to admit you lost me at this sentence, “Exhibit B, then, has got to be the obsession with miseducating teenagers about sex with the high hopes that they won’t have saturated with the glee that those who do have sex will be thoroughly punished with pregnancy.”
I think it is missing a word or three. (I also think you used “inoculated” wrong.)
Forgive me, I am in a copyediting mode at work today.
Now that I’ve done that, I will pipe in with a hear-hear. I don’t even want to get into the creepy weirdness of that situation in Kansas.
Oddly, a friend of mine’s goddaughter just won the “Christian Spirit” prize last year in her high school for being the most studious, community-servingist, etc. I don’t think “virginal” was in the list, although I suspect something like that was included in the judging.
This girl is, perhaps not surprisingly, a pagan through and through (I believe primarily Wiccan, although it is tough to pin down) and finds the whole thing remarkably funny.
LC - Is that a private school?
Wally:
Be nice or we’ll tell the home where you’re at.
Amanda! You’re not comparing the wingnuts to pimps…are you?
Of course, as knowledge is power, and the entire point of the anti-choice movement is to dis-empower women back to the powerless state they were in during the 50’s, keeping young girls ignorant, misinformed and handy lolicon bait is a goal in and of itself.
The ideal right-wing relationship is one involving a massive power imbalance after all, and what sort of relationship is more imbalanced than one between a lolicon perve and a young child?
Even the homophobic conflation between homosexuals and peadophiles fits into it neatly, because as long as you’re stating and restating this belief that homosexuals are basically peadophiles, you ignore the sub-rape culture fact that most peadophiles are heterosexual men with uglier than usual inferiority complexes, preying on little girls who they have power over.
I think it is a private school. (Canadian, too, FYI)
Regarding Coretta Scott King’s funeral, I wrote about how conservatives Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson treated it at:
http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/2006/02/12/george-w-bush-gave-rev-joseph-lowery-a-standing-ovation-on-tuesday/
Wally, if I were you, I’d be more careful of making the logical conjunction between your own activities here and “pulling” certain apendages. We already know. We just prefer not to demean a healthy activity like masturbation by associating it with you. Glue-sniffing seems more your style as recreation goes, or perhaps you’d like to drive down to Mal-Wart and fondle a few more Olson Twins calendars in the remainder bin again…
That first picture is telling. That’s exactly what they want: women silenced. In fact, the first time I saw one of that particular brand of protester, I thought she was on our side, because I translated it as “women are silenced by the people who invoke ‘life.’”
Anyone ever see that picture with an anti-gay protester flanked on either side by counterprotesters with T-shirts that said “He’s” and “Gay”? If there’s ever a chance to do something similar, a good idea would be to stand behind them with a sign that says “Pro-Life’s wildest dream: Women Silenced” or something similar.
R. Mildred—”Lolicon.” LOL!
Someone inform me when my “pull by” date was; I got married when I was 37. Horrible, pro-choice, harpy that I am.
Re: Exhibit C
As capitalism plays by it’s own, nonChristian rules, if boys don’t learn discipline, men don’t get jobs. Some folks would be in for a right shock at the result of that. However, I like men too much to want them to be at such a competitive disadvantage.
I think part of the motivation for having nothing but nubile teenagers around is that their ignorance is low-stress for patriarchal men.
This Kansas thing: The essential difference between a blow job and cunnilingus is not just that males get pleasure and females don’t; really, if it was that, then fucking would be okay. It’s that males don’t have to do anything. It doesn’t create the risk of a man feeling he might be inadequate because of knowledge or skill that he lacks.
Similarly, he need not know how to fuck well if he only fucks ignorant, uneducated virgins. Sex education might inform them of their capacity for orgasm, or that (and this is crucial) other men’s dicks might be bigger than theirs.
The purpose of women, then, is to make men feel good, adequate, smart, and able. Only very ignorant women can be guaranteed to do that.
Ever heard of the “Roe Effect?” That’s probably why the pro-choice “babes” look a lot older than the pro-life babes. By having so many abortions you’re killing off the next generation of rabid feminists.
Ever heard of the “Roe Effect?� That’s probably why the pro-choice “babes� look a lot older than the pro-life babes. By having so many abortions you’re killing off the next generation of rabid feminists.
Right, because feminism is genetic.
Sorry about the double post. Something went wrong in my browser.
Anne, guess you didn’t read the Wikipedia article closely enough. If only Pro-Life women are having daughters, then they’re raising their daughter’s to be Pro-Life also. When a “Pro-Choice” woman aborts her daughter, that’s one less girl in the next generation who will be raised as a feminist.
Nurture, not nature.
But if my daughter’s not a virgin then how will I be able to marry her off to the son of our enemies leader on my left flank in order to seal the rift and establish allies against the enemies on my right flank? Without my daughter I have no way to prevent getting squished on both sides. I need my daughters to do this.
MYOB’
.
Jason -
That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve read on the internets all week, primarily because it assumes that anti-choice women will always act inaccordance with their publicly-proclaimed beliefs when they’re faced with unexpected, unwated pregnancies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not, in fact, the case, and that those women are as likely as anyone else to have an abortion if they feel they need one.
Your argument also fails to acknowledge that being pro-choice does not necessarily mean a woman will ever actually have an abortion herself. It simply means that she believes that control of a woman’s reproductive system is best left to the owner of said system, and not to her husband / boyfriend / father / government.
Wait, but my mom had 3 kids and my aunt had 4. Does this mean they’re not really pro-choice as they claimed? I mean only a pro-lifer would have kept them, right?
I suspect almost all of Wally’s “dates” involve “pulling” if you catch my drift.
If only Pro-Life women are having daughters, then they’re raising their daughter’s to be Pro-Life also. When a “Pro-Choice� woman aborts her daughter, that’s one less girl in the next generation who will be raised as a feminist.
Pro-lifers just download their ideology straight into their children’s brains, because it’s not like children become people seperate and different from their parents or anything.
And certainly no anti-choicer aborts, mwahaha (sorry, counter-factual statements can only be so ridiculous before I automatically burst into maniacal laughter)
Oh and pro-choicers don’t breed, especially all those lesbian couples, that’s why repugs need to make “pro-life” laws that make all that hawt lesbian-on-turkey-baster action illegal.
Gotta love a myth that is patently ridiculous at face value and incorporates the standard blind spots of anti-choicers: why women actually abort and the dangerousness of pregnancy itself.
Is there a tag that turns words neon bright and makes them flash? because if there is could someone put the words “THERE ARE NO ABORTION PARTIES OUTSIDE YOUR IMAGINATION YOU IDIOTS” inside such tags?
Wait, I’m missing something. I don’t have any daughters because I’m pro-choice? Silly me, I thought it was because I happened to have boys.
Why do I suspect that Wally’s “pull by” date passed a long time ago? Like during the Ice Age?
Hey, I think you need a better class of troll. These guys are just too easy.
BTW, awesome title, Amanda. All the pedophilic porn-hounds using Google today are going to be very disappointed.
What about the anti-Roe effect? You know, where anti-choicers prevent their teens from having abortions, whereas pro-choicers help teens abort unwanted pregnancies.
The anti-choice teens are bad mothers, raising their unwanted children in the conditions you might expect: Poverty and ignorance, because of aborted education, and dysfunction, because of the unhappy circumstance of conception.
The pro-choice teens grow up to have children they chose. They are better mothers because their children are wanted, and the mothers are a little older; better equipped emotionally and financially to deal with the stress of parenthood.
The result? Sane, liberal pro-choice children, insane, batshit wingnut anti-choice children.
heheh…, hey lil girl, wanna come back to my place, I’ll mix some sugar in with your rainwater and grain alcohol…
Re Jason’s “Roe Effect” theory:
It is more likely to mean that pro-choice women have their daughters when they’re older, better off financially, and generally in a better position to be good parents. They still have children, but they just time it differently so as not to screw up their lives.
And the “Roe effect” is completely negated if a woman aborts a pregnancy that she didn’t plan on in her late teens or early twenties, but has a couple in her late twenties or early thirties that she might not have had if she was too burdened with supporting a child from the earlier pregnancy to afford them.
Example: Woman A and Woman B get pregnant in college. Woman A has the baby and either drops out or scales back her course load in order to fit in caring for the baby and working enough to support both of them. Woman B has an abortion and continues with her life unimpeded. Ten years later, Woman A is supporting a child. Woman B has no child to support and has probably gotten further along in her studies than Woman A, and therefore may well have got a higher-paying job. With more money and less demands on that money, Woman B is in a much better financial situation. Woman B can now start a family, confident that she has ample resources to support them. Woman A is having a harder time making ends meet and worries that she would be unable to support more children. Woman B decides to have two or three children. Woman A decides that she will stick with one child, as she doesn’t think she can afford more.
Not set in stone, of course, but then, few things are. Certainly not this “Roe effect,” which probably has more effect on the timing of babies born to pro-choicers than the number (after all, if a woman wants no babies at all, sterilization is much more efficient than repeated abortions).
I didn’t read the “article” at all, Jason
uh, crap, that last post was suppossed to have html tags on it that looked like
blahblahblah (/derbyshire>
Of course, some pro-choice women AND some pro-life women never abort, becaue they never find themselves pregnant. Another fly in Jason’s theoretical butter. Or may I call him “Mr. Daphe ?”
Maybe this is a testament to the “bubble” of living in Manhattan and getting a college education, but I can safely say that I have never met a pro-life woman. I am a recent college graduate, and a guy, and I have never known a pro-life woman my age. Ever. Not one. Perhaps I have and just didn’t know, but I can safely say that all of the women that I have ever known beyond just a polite “hello” here and there, were all pro-choice. Everyone I’ve ever dated, was friends with, wanted to date, friend of a friend, etc. Its almost so universal that I just assume that no woman of my age or generation could possibly be pro-life. Is this because I’m young? I don’t know any pro-life guys either, I am friends with a few openly Republican guys, hell even one or two that voted for Bush in 04, yet despite their political affliation, when asked they’re all pro-choice, or qualify their support by saying, “but I am Pro-Choice.” (Whether one can truly be pro-choice and vote Repubican is another matter) but I am fascinated by how seemingly one-sided my entire social circle of young college educated men and women are on this.
I think it’s because when you boil it all down, both men and women of my age like the idea of being able to have sex without the consequence of unintended pregnancy. It just seems totally alien to me that anyone my age could be pro-life, and when I hear about young women in particular who are pro-life, its like hearing about the Yeti or Bigfoot. Am I just so thoroughly insulated that I’m missing out on this phenomenon, or is it more of a universal thing with people my age? Any thoughts?
kyra - you forgot what happens if a woman dies (aborting the pregnancy in the process) during a pregnancy she was forced to endure during her teenage years, a woman who would have lived and had several children if abortion had been a legal choice.
“Ever heard of the “Roe Effect?â€Â? That’s probably why the pro-choice “babesâ€Â? look a lot older than the pro-life babes. By having so many abortions you’re killing off the next generation of rabid feminists.”
Can someone please send this comment in to one of the blog award contests? Is there a category out there for “unintentionally-funny-because-it’s-so-damn-absurd” blog comments?
The “Roe Effect” HA!
Or may I call him “Mr. Daphe ?�
Daphne is Mr. Daphne.
Re: “Roe Effect”:
My mother is anti-abortion. I am pro-choice. My younger sister is ambivalent on the matter (give her time). The assumption that anti-choice mothers will raise children incapable of forming their own moral beliefs is a bit stupid; wherever a modicum of common sense and intellectual honesty is allowed to germinate, anything can happen. Of course, Dad was pro-choice, so . . .
How presumptuous can you be, karpy? I’ve never said I was a man, a woman, or human being. How do you know I’m not a chaotic evil quasit squeezed from the tit of Orcus?
But is karpad the Eggman and Amanda the Walrus, or is it vice-versa ?
Koo koo katchoooo…
FrontsNYC
I live in Madison WI (a town often refered to as the Seattle of the Midwest for it’s liberal atmospher and presence of co-ops) and I don’t know anyone who is pro-life either. My friends are all pro-choice, their friends are pro-choice, etc
Then I go home.
Home is Ashwaubenon WI, a smallish suburb of Green Bay (17,000 ppl). People around the country think that Green Bay is this cute working class town full of cheese and the Packers. It’s also about 90% Catholic. In that case, I know almost no one who is really pro-choice. Some are kinda sorta tenatively pro-choice (sorta the illegal abortion would be worse arguement) but most are very pro-life. How pro-life you might ask? Well when I was in 7th grade we watched a video in sex ed class where the a young girl went into an abortion clinic and before she could abort the baby, the disembodied ghost of her soon-to-be dead fetus (who looked like a cute little 4 year old) started asking questions like “Mommy, why do you want to kill me?”
Yes people, this was public school, Wisconsin taxpayer dollars at work. And this was in the mid 90’s (probably 1996?).
I seem to remember hearing something about a strict authoritarian religious sect obsessing over some amount of virgins as a reward if they complete some anti-democratic task. Details on the specifics are a little fuzzy though, sorry.
Jason:
Being pro-life doesn’t actually mean not having abortions. It just means pontificating to others about the evils of abortion after you have one. Stats indicate more abortions by Catholics than Protestants.
The feminists’ daughters don’t get abortions more, they use birth control more.
“If only Pro-Life women are having daughters, then they’re raising their daughter’s to be Pro-Life also. When a “Pro-Choiceâ€Â? woman aborts her daughter, that’s one less girl in the next generation who will be raised as a feminist.”
“acallidryas Feb 13th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Wait, but my mom had 3 kids and my aunt had 4. Does this mean they’re not really pro-choice as they claimed?”
I think it means you don’t exist.
And neither do I.
Freaky.
It’s easy to mock Jason — fun, too — but the “Roe Effect” may not necessarily be as stupid as its name — or Jason — would indicate.
Andy Singer, who is most emphatically not a conservative has a cartoon in which one couple saying “we should be responsible and use birth control” has two kids, who have two kids each, and so on, while the couple who says “birth control is wrong” has six kids, who each have six kids, and so on. Singer makes the point that the former have better lives, but, hey, since when have conservatives ever cared about that?
You can see an echo of that in the Wikipedia article, in which James Taranto opines that the reason why child poverty rates are lower in solidly-Democratic areas than elsewhere is that we blue-staters are more likely to take whether we can actually care for a child into an account when having one. (Being a wingnut, he doesn’t express it that way, but that’s the way it ultimately settles out.)
Now, Andy Singer does not speak for all liberals, needless to say, and his possible endorsement doesn’t mean the “Roe Effect” isn’t bullshit, but who among us, in our darkest moments, hasn’t had the nightmare that the rest of us are being outbred by the stupid people?
Jason and Wally,
Perhaps the reason you see so many more young women at the forced birther rallies is that your typical anti-choice female may not be much to look at by time she has turned 25.
Getting married at 18 and then having several babies, while cleaning up after your sexist asshole of a husband tends to take a heavy toll on that dewy, youthful pulchritude. I mean, I dunno, it’s just a thought.
Anti-choicers tell gullible people like “Jason” about the so-called “Roe Effect”, as if pro-choice women are the only women who get abortions.
What those antis neglect to tell him/her/it is that antis themselves get abortions and then go back out on the picket lines to scream in other women’s faces. ‘Cause “the only moral abortion” is “my abortion”.
Wonder if anti-choicers tally those abortions when they’re investigating the “Roe Effect”?
cminus- you’re ignoring the fact that a great many pro-choicer was raised by anti-choicers (e.g. pro-/anti-choice is not genetic as has been pointed out several times already in response to the “Roe effect” stupidity).
cminus wrote:
…”who among us, in our darkest moments, hasn’t had the nightmare that the rest of us are being outbred by the stupid people?…”
Well, it must be a reciprocal nightmare, as Robert the Catholic Libertarian Pro-Lifer on Alas has more than once assured me that he is grateful that I neither teach nor mother.
I should ruin it for him by telling him that I have an older sister and a younger brother who teach. Former divorced, no kids. Latter married, one foster child. Surely all this subversive liberalism must run in families…
So the childfree liberals, Lefties, and Commies should either arrange a mass infiltration of the parachial school system, or develop an elaborate army of drive-by home-schoolers. I think that to most effectively terrify the tots and their parents, we should all dress in Che’ Guevara masks… and perhaps have forked tails as well.
Fronts NYC
Maybe this is a testament to the “bubble� of living in Manhattan and getting a college education,
Both your community and your education help to skew you away from socializing with pro-life supporters. You’re simply moving in different, non intersecting, social circles.
I think it’s because when you boil it all down, both men and women of my age like the idea of being able to have sex without the consequence of unintended pregnancy.
Twas always thus. However, people change as they progress through life. Case in point, most single women vote Democratic but we find that the majority of married women are now voting Republican. Sure, it’s not a 1:1 conversion but there are a sizable fraction who switch over. The likely reason is that their priorities in life are changing and from these changed priorities flow changed political expectations. The same dynamic is at play with parenthood and abortion. Again, certainly nowhere near a 1:1 conversion, but when some of your friends become parents, the reality of a child’s life will weigh heavily upon their ideology of choice. Some will flip.
Am I just so thoroughly insulated that I’m missing out on this phenomenon, or is it more of a universal thing with people my age?
I think that you’re insulated by community, SES, education, probably religion (you didn’t mention it) and age. There will be a gradual whittling away. Move to a christian enclave, find a circle of associates that is drawn less from college and post-grad people, start hanging with parents, etc and your horizons will broaden.
Kyra, the idea that having larger families skews towards larger conservative populations is not the “Roe effect.” There’s real statistical and theoretical data to support what you say, but none to support the “Roe effect,” which is based on a half-dozen or so false premises.
Smaller families are not, generally, the result of abortion access, but of good education about sex and birth control, and about choices in life (not just abortion choice, but choice; lots of women have a ton of kids because they don’t know how else to live).
Parents have a major impact on the beliefs of their children. I’m the lone liberal in a conservative family. My cousins and nieces and nephews who grow up with fundamentalist conservative parents tend to be fundamentalists and conservatives (albeit not politically active). The vast majority of kids in every corner of the world, unfortunately, grow up to mimic the religion of their parents. It’s not a wacky idea.
Maybe when I get home, I can post some of my photos from the March For Life, if that helps. Anyway, it was pretty clear that a large proportion of the March For Life marchers were teenagers, bussed in from Catholic High Schools. They weren’t “barely legal.” They were around fourteen to sixteen.
Also, they were dressed up like they were “going out,” whereas most of the pro-choicers were wearing tee-shirts with political slogans and the like.
Yes, the pro-choicers were older, ranging from late teens and early twenties to forties and older. But the extreme youth of the teenagers in the March For Life seemed to me a demonstration of the manipulativeness of the anti-choice movement, as in my experience, with rare exceptions, people younger than about sixteen just aren’t mature enough yet to take politics seriously.
I wouldn’t say I’m “ignoring” it so much as including it under the “of course, it could still be nonsense” disclaimer for space reasons. Hell, you could call me one such convert; I initially bought the anti-choice propaganda they served up in the schools. That being said, though, the anti-choicers I grew up with were more likely to have anti-choice parents than sheer random chance would indicate. Ditto the pro-choicers, but even more so.
If (major caveat here) the “Roe Effect” isn’t just nonsense, it implies that pro-choicers need to convert anti-choicers at a net rate at least equal to the difference in birth rates. Fortunately, whether or not there’s anything to the “Roe Effect” I think we can do that; from experience, it’s easier to convert anti-choicers to pro-choice than the other way around. Freedom is the better sell, after all.
Zoidberg,
where can I get a copy of that video?
Tango, why would the fact that I or my friends have children change how I feel about fetuses?
The troll desire to promote the idea that a woman’s age is inversely proportional to sex appeal parallels the recent discussion about the Dan Savage interview and the connection between misogyny and homophobia. It seems to me ever more clear that men like Derbyshire and likeminded trolls who taunt grown women by saying that they lost their appeal to men by the end of adolescence are likewise betraying their misogyny. I am guessing the underlying motivation is a deperate attempt to undermine women whose autonomy, agency, educational accomplishments and financial independence leave them at pains to hide just how little they have to add to a real woman’s life. Or could it be just sour grapes? - perhaps they got laughed at once too often when trying out a lame pick-up line on a woman who was out of their league.
Hershele Ostropoler,
why would the fact that I or my friends have children change how I feel about fetuses?
It wouldn’t change your feelings, obviously. The fact is that your feelings are only material to you. Others follow different vectors. Look at Planned Parenthood data, NARAL demographics, etc. Some people change their positions as they move through life.
And of course, as they change their feelings, it becomes their life’s work to impose their feelings on my womb. How nice.
IOW, when one ceases to need or desire a particular right, it should go away for everyone.
Anyone for Fresca ? Bourbon in that, perhaps ? The week is young…
Alsis: “koo koo katchoo” was Mrs. Robinson–I think you were looking for “goo goo g’joob”?
Shit, I can’t even bother dealing with the trolls’ stupid-arse arguments today……….
alsis39.5,
IOW, when one ceases to need or desire a particular right, it should go away for everyone.
First off, look at the context of this dialogue, starting with Fronts NYC’s observation.
That said, you’re probably not far off in your conclusion. Granted we’re talking about a, probably, small subset of people who move from pro-choice to actively agitating for pro-life legislation, rather than merely adopting pro-life sympathies.
I’m sure the issue is obvious to you - that small subset change their opinion on what a “right” really is, or they revalue competing rights. I have no idea how you can reach that small subset and reorient them away from their revaluations, because they used to be your compatriots and they probably already know what you’re going to say.
“Case in point, most single women vote Democratic but we find that the majority of married women are now voting Republican.”
I’d like to see some documentation on that Tango, cause it smells like bullshit to me. Most women, married or single, vote Democratic. It may be that of Republican women, most are married, but this is not the same thing as saying most married women are Republican.
Even beyond the facts, your premise is horribly flawed. You seem to think pro-choicers oppose forced childbirth because we don’t know or care about children, and that therefore our opinions change when we become parents. Ridiculous. I am mother to three, aunt to seven and god-mother to six, and my feelings about forced childbirth have only become stronger over the years. I oppose forced childbirth because it’s wrong. Wrong for me, wrong for my children, wrong for anyone.
ps: to those of you worried about being “outbred” by the knuckle-draggers, at least some of us are holding up our end!
CrysT wrote:
Alsis: “koo koo katchoo� was Mrs. Robinson–I think you were looking for “goo goo g’joob�?
What, you don’t like my funny foreign accent ? Whatever happened to diversity ? :/
Alsis, anyone who respects the fun, sugarfree grapefruity taste of Fresca gets bonus points.
and just so you know, I’m neither the eggman or the walrus. They call me Doctor Worm.
I am pro-choice, and plan on having a whole passel of kids. Take that, trolls!
I remember a day in the 8th grade when a born-again Christian student gave a heavily biased presentation on abortion. The teacher then asked who was pro-life and who was pro-choice, and I was the only one who raised my hand as pro-choice. (To his credit, he always stressed respect for everyone’s opinions.) I took a lot of flak from the other kids at the time, but I now wonder how many have changed their position. I know my cousin, who at 12 decried the killing of “little babies” is now an active women’s rights advocate at her university. How many more of her are there? How many more will there be?
You’re interested in things.
You’re not a real doctor, but you are a real worm.
Whoops, I didn’t account for Charlotte slipping into the space between posts.
and just so you know, I’m neither the eggman or the walrus. They call me Doctor Worm.
Some people call him Maurice, cause he speaks of the pompatus of love.
Look at Planned Parenthood data, NARAL demographics, etc.
Is there data regarding people’s feotal views? really? Not just whether or not they have abortion but their general stance on fetuses of all shapes and sizes is recorded as changing as they age until they hit menopause and transmogrify into fred phelps?
I’d like to see some documentation on that Tango, cause it smells like bullshit to me. Most women, married or single, vote Democratic.
Happy to oblige. Would a report from a “Progressive” think tank, Third Way - A Strategy Center for Progressives be considered an untainted source? Their report The Politics of Polarization makes note of the marriage gap, in Table 6, page 31:
You seem to think pro-choicers oppose
You don’t really have a handle on what I think. I’m pro-choice myself. I’m just pointing out what data is showing and not arguing any philosophical position.
Also, keep in mind that self-identified liberals are outnumbered 50% by self-identified conservatives. Liberals needs to capture a larger share of the moderate vote than do conservatives, so moves that appeal to the base tend to not appeal to moderates and when married women are looking at the issues, the things that mattered when they were single are not the same things that matter when they’re married. Again I’m speaking statistically here, not about any person in particular, so I clearly grant that many people keep faith with their ideology as they progress through life.
Tango, you’ve actually got it backwards–having children isn’t likely to make some more anti-choice/anti-woman. In fact, I know you saw (and ignored) the study I recently blogged demonstrated that Congressmen who had daughters were more, not less, likely to support abortion rights.
Well, I guess in your world, daughters, being non-fetal women, don’t count as bona fide human beings, so it’s easy to dismiss those findings.
It’s true that married women are more likely to be Republican, but that doesn’t mean they suddenly grow fond of forced pregnancy. First of all, there are plenty of reasons to vote Republican besides your hating women reason–tax cuts, hate foreigners, bad habit, whatever. Plenty of Repubs are pro-choice, actually. But mostly you’re mixing up correlation and causation–marriage correlates to a lot of other factors that predict the likelihood someone will vote Republican, age and tax brackets being biggies.
But you know what? I’d actually not give two shits if you could prove that marriage causes women to be more conservative. I don’t doubt it a bit–women on the whole are more liberal than men and so there’s clearly a lot of marriages where the man is more conservative than the woman and resorts to bullying to get her to vote the way he wants her to. Just one more anti-marriage argument, there, so I don’t see why you’re gung-ho about it.
Are there really pro-life libertarians? I am getting that vibe from Tango. What the hell is that about?
That’s an easy one Stephen: Men can handle freedom, women can’t. Estrogen is simply not compatible with a functioning moral compass. Makes it all “wobble-wobble,” to quote Pinky.
Karpad, Chris, thanks for helping straighten up a few more tiles in the cosmic mosaic. Now if I could just figure out who likes to be called Mr. Tibbs…
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I thought I was a libertarian for a while in high school. That’s because I lived in a nice suburb where I was sheltered from knowing that government, you know, does stuff.
I think a lot of people (like tango, judging from his blog) read Pinker and Wilson and get confused about it. It is oh so easy to fall into just-so story traps when we talk about genetics. Are the sexes different? Yes. Does this mean that our anecdotal experience can actually draw any conclusions from that? No. Is a lot of behavior just biology? Yes. Does this mean that women are naturally more nuturing? Not necessarily.
Stephen,
Are there really pro-life libertarians? I am getting that vibe from Tango.
Huh? The flying spaghetti monster must have crossed wires at the Universal Switchboard, because that’s not the vibe I’m sending out. I’m stumped as to what you read that could possibly be construed as me advancing that message.
Amanda,
there’s clearly a lot of marriages where the man is more conservative than the woman and resorts to bullying to get her to vote the way he wants her to.
Oh, that’s priceless. The reason many women vote conservative is simply because their husbands bully them into it. Yup.
I guess it’s impossible to imagine that a mother may have reason to question the family friendly policies of the Democratic Party. If she’s a white mother, then race based quota systems will directly harm her children. If she cares about educational quality or educational choice, then Democratic support for teachers’ unions works against her interests. I could go on listing policy issues which have a noticable split between singles and marrieds, but why bother when the more elegant “browbeating” hypothesis is working just fine for “Progressive” thinkers.
Check out my political declaration of Oct. 20, 2004. Reconcile that with the strawman you’re arguing against.
In my observation, one of the major reasons that formerly pro-legal-abortion women change to anti-legal-abortion women is that they have trouble getting pregnant, either from endometriosis or some such, or from unrecognized sexually transmitted diseases such as Chlamydia (which can cause tubal blockages). There can be some serious jealousy of overly fertile women, and resentment that those women can abort rather than produce white newborns for adoption.
You appear to be known by many names. Are there some who call you…..Tim?
Tango, I regardless of your political declaration, I disagree with you on a lot. I think there are reasons that married people might be more conservative on the average, but the evidence does not seem to support any kind of causal relationship (in my opinion). This is like the oft-cited study that cohabitating people are more likely to get divorces. (well duh, but there is no evidence that cohabitation CAUSES divorce)
Then you list a bunch of opinions stated as facts. as if people pick political affiliation based purely on rational thought. Suddenly they have kids and after years of supporting unions they think they are bad for their kids. When they thought that all people should get an equal chance at an education before, now that their kids need a piece of the pie they don’t want “quotas” keeping their kids from getting their
birthrightfair chance at getting into the best schools. God I hope having kids doesn’t do this to people. Because that is a scary thought.Move to a christian enclave, find a circle of associates that is drawn less from college and post-grad people, start hanging with parents, etc and your horizons will broaden.
*dying of laughter*
OK, so hanging out with Christian fundamentalists and people with less education will broaden my horizons? How, exactly?
Also, I hang with my parents quite frequently, and yet here I am, a pro-choice liberal. Gadzooks!
Tango, it makes a lot more sense than your weird theory that people have children and, consumed with a sudden hatred for those children, want to take away their rights.
BTW, finally drifted over to the Alternet article that was the aparent touch-off of this whole thing. Was delighted to take note that the author is annoyed at her supposed allies in ‘04 for not all showing up in pageboys, power suits, full makeup and signs with the same slogan for everyone. If she honestly thinks that was the biggest problem with that (cough, Kerry) damn march (cough, fucking sell-out spineless puddle of pablum), I’ll just shake my head and continue to not care whether or not I’m ever welcome back in the Real Feminist Clubhouse again… >:
Why is it so hard for some people (you know who you are) to understand that it is MY choice to have a child or not? MINE. ALL MINE!
And, BTW, I’m really gorgeous.
Are there really pro-life libertarians?
There’s VD of course, though he’s also a christian who doesn’t believe in love, which is actually much more absurd.
And hey, Tango, don’t bellyache about strawmen when you claim that by my saying there are many reasons people vote Republican means I am actually saying that there’s no reasons for people to vote Republican. There’s no good reasons, yeah, but there are a bunch of reasons.
And ha, pathetic attempt at a blogwhore, troll. You are not interesting enough for me to read, and I really do wish you felt the same about me.
And, just one more thought–I don’t see why the notion that Republican men bully women into being more conservative is supposedly silly. I’m the constant recipient of such bullying. Wally’s entire schtick, for instance, is to threaten me with eternal loneliness if I don’t submit and play patsy to a political system designed to subjugate women. Luckily, Wally doesn’t have the power to make his threats real to me, but I do pity his poor wife, if he ever managed to get one.
I really do wish you felt the same about me.
OK. Bye.
Sweet! Think he means it? That one was easy.
Somewhat OT: Some guy recently complained in the old Suicide Girls thread that SG wasn’t unfair and that “you guys” are stupid. I wanted to comment back that writing in an old thread is stupid, but I thought that would be hypocritical.
Well now that’s interesting, because here’s what I found at the Pew Research Center:
“Women in every age group are more Democratic than Republican, with the largest gaps occurring among those age 60 and older. But Democrats also have a big advantage among young women (ages 18-24) and Baby Boomers.”
And which is it, Tango? Earlier you said :”people change as they progress through life. Case in point, most single women vote Democratic but we find that the majority of married women are now voting Republican. Sure, it’s not a 1:1 conversion but there are a sizable fraction who switch over”
But then later: “I’m speaking statistically here, not about any person in particular, so I clearly grant that many people keep faith with their ideology as they progress through life.”
Is there a “sizable fraction” who switch over or a “many” who keep the faith? Or are you just talking out of some orifice that is not your mouth?
I wonder, does blog whoring work? I post in the comments sometimes, but it doesn’t bring me many hits…I get like, uh, twelve a day. More people probably read this comment than have ever read my blog. But that was good work driving away that troll. Almost too easy…
Kyra (or anyone feeling helpful) what exactly IS that picture supposed to be saying in support of the anti-choicers? I think it’s a really beautiful picture (it still is striking regardless of the intended political message), and I too immediately thought of it as being an illustration of what “pro-life”rs do to women.
Fab read, both the post and the comments following.
I’ve always described myself as “pro-choice in general, pro-life for myself,” yet I seriously considered termination when I experienced an unwanted pregnancy two years ago. I decided not to, and I now have a fabulous 16-month-old daughter who’s funny, smart, and the light of my life (not that I’m biased or anything).
Choosing to have my daughter was the right thing for me, but I’m thankful every day that it was exactly that: a choice. Never will I/do I find myself looking at my daughter as something that was forced upon me by a bad date-rape-ish (long story) experience. Instead, I decided to bring her into my world.
On the “heredity” conversation, eh, whatever. My family is predominantly conservative, and my immediate family is fundy-conservative. We love each other a great deal, and I hang with my parents often…but I still disagree with them most of the time.
Anyway, pro-choice gal here who CHOSE to not abort after finding myself preggers (and single) at 32. We do exist.
You meaning slapping a piece of tape over a woman’s mouth and shutting her up doesn’t evoke tyranny to you?
Well, she’s pretty. She don’t need to fuck it up with talking and shit anyway.
Amanda - I guess I wasn’t clear. I got the impression from the post that the picture posted (at the beginning of your post) was a picture of an antichoice protester. And I was unclear about what exactly the antichoice message was behind it. Then Kyra wrote:
That first picture is telling. That’s exactly what they want: women silenced. In fact, the first time I saw one of that particular brand of protester, I thought she was on our side, because I translated it as “women are silenced by the people who invoke ‘life.’�
I read this as meaning that Kyra, too, thought this was antichoice protestor but one who appeared to be prolife at first glance. (sorry to Kyra if I was misunderstanding you!) I was under the impression that this was an antichoice protestor, and I wanted to know what statement she was trying to make. So, to answer your question, yes, slapping a piece of tape over a woman’s mouth does evoke tyranny. I was trying to understand how it could be construed any other way. I think the trolls on here have made you a little edgey? Or maybe I am just too sleepy to have asked my question well.
Thanks for driving away Tango, Amanda. He always annoys the good people at feministe, and I always have to tell him where to go, and what he can stick where. I always blogwhore by uh…having my blog as my website. Or something
Sweet! Think he means it? That one was easy.
I dunno, I’m ambivalent. Tango did present an interesting challenge: surpasing the absurdity of his claims with non sequitur asides.
Something about me being a drum-playing worm, and my roommate Rabbi Bull, and Amanda being a panda-walrus-mouse thing.
I think Rumble was Sir Sidney Poitier or something.
And then Tango had to pull out his crazy strawmen. and he has now, appearantly, Quit Teh Internets Forever.
What’s a guy gotta do to win this “crazy nonsense” game? start writing Seussian sonnets dedicated to the glory of various damsels of the blog?
Scent of a Woman’s Ink II…
(Photo by Mark Beazley, BigToePhotography
This week, more writing from women across the Internet. I am still selecting material that does not have a common theme, other than that I liked it and it was written by a woman. But, in coming weeks, I will b…
#why would the fact that I or my friends have children change how I feel about fetuses?
It wouldn’t change your feelings, obviously
Very clever, now answer the fucking question: why would I feel differently about a fetus if I had a child?
I have a feeling I know what you’re going to say, but I could be underestimating you.
I suppose someone who sincerely believes abortion is murder could be a libertarian and still be pro-life. And there are always the net-libertarians whose political views extend no farther than “I should get to do whatever I want.”
Tango:
I guess it’s impossible to imagine that a mother may have reason to question the family friendly policies of the Democratic Party.
“Family” is usually a code word for something relating to homosexuals. What exactly are you referring to here?
Marith:
Kyra, too, thought this was antichoice protestor but one who appeared to be prolife at first glance.
What do you think the difference is between “anti-choice” and “pro-life”?
Gods damn it, READ my post before you comment on it, I was attacking the idea of the “Roe effect” which Jason had brought up under the guise of a legitimate concern. I never endorsed the idea, I was suggesting that if there was any effect that access to abortion had on the number of children born to pro-choice women, it had to do with timing rather than number, and demonstrated an example in which it was likely to have the opposite effect of that “Roe effect.”
TangoMan—
One of my friends supported Kerry in the last election but voted for Bush because she was worried that her father would catch a glimpse of her ballot when she went to put it in the machine.
I know women who will vote as their husbands do just so that they don’t have to listen to the constant bitching for years when hubby dearest looses.
I personally think it is a stupid reason to vote one way or the other, and is basically wasting what little voice you have as an individual, but it doesn’t change the fact that it happens. I don’t doubt that some men move beyond anoying the hell out of their spouse and actively bully their wives to vote for their approved candidate.
Hershele,
Goddammit I mistyped, I was sleepy. It should read antichoice then prochoice. Geez, ok, sleepy posting apparently is as dangerous as drunk posting.
Marith—
I thought it was a pro-choice protester making the point that the “pro-life” agenda silences women, as effectively as a piece of duct tape over the mouth. Sorry if “on our side” was a bit ambiguous, but this is a pro-choice blog, and if I’d been a pro-lifer I’d have said “on my side.”
I don’t really get what the pro-lifers are trying to say with it. Possibly they represent silenced fetuses?
Kyra - thanks for your reply, I didn’t think you were being ambiguous at all. I was trying to say (and apparently failed miserably) that I had the same response to the picture that you did, and that I was confused about what (antichoice) message was being conveyed if it was indeed a picture of antichoice/prolife woman, so I thought I would ask the other commenters here if anyone here was familiar with the “logic” behind it. The only thing I could come up with myself was that maybe the message of “life” was supposed to be so powerful that nothing else needed to be said? By the way, I’ve never seen the picture of the antigay rights protestor that you mentioned, but just the description made me laugh out loud.
TapeTum —
Does that mean that I’m anti-choice, ‘cause all 4 of my kids are boys? (unless wife # 1 lied about the milk-deliveries)
DArn, and I thought arguing with the ZPG folks was a bummer…
Epistemology —
That stat coule be partly because there are more Roman Catholics than protestants (I don’t really class the “Fundasmentalist” brands to be “protestant,” but another ball of string entirely)
Alsis —
I still have trouble getting my mind around someone who professes to be a Roman Catholic *and* professes to be “libertarian” (other than “civil libertarian”). The core teachings of the two are just so contradictory…
Foolish Owl —
Your experience about the “bused-in” pro-life troops validates something I’ve suspected — among the ranks of the younger marchers involved in pro-choice vs anti-choice I believe that a much larger percentage of those at the pro-choice events are there because *they* choose to participate, rather than because they were *told* they were going by those ion power over them.
(I haven’t had to stack comments that way in a while — your comment threads get too big too quick…)
Marith—I missed your first post, then I guess I couldn’t quite figure out your second one, translating it as wondering whether I was a pro-choicer mistaking a pro-life protest gesture for a pro-choice one or a pro-lifer mistaking a pro-choice protest gesture for a pro-life one, hence the attempt to clear up confusion on that matter.
Scrambling to read and respond, both somewhat intelligently, whilst in a hurry to finish up and get to class on time, is not the best of ideas, I think.
I believe that a much larger percentage of those at the pro-choice events are there because *they* choose to participate, rather than because they were *told* they were going by those ion power over them.
Which would mean something if those types didn’t value blind loyalty over having an opinion anyway.
The picture I mentioned is on Jasmyn Cannick’s blog, here if I remembered how to do the link properly; click on “White Anti-Gay Group to Protest King Funeral” in the Recent Posts sidebar on the right-hand side (the separate posts do not seem to have their own URLs), and the picture is at the top of the post.
Ampersand has a link to it on his blogroll under the LGBTQ heading, if I screwed up the link (in which case I made another one, presumeably with the same mistakes).
The shirts need arrows. Other than that, though, yes, it’s hilarious.
[…] Okay, well the plan seems vaguely outrageous until you remember how the anti-choice marches are configured, with the line of nubile virgins always front and center, wank material for the cadre of resentful men who have been waiting for this moment to reclaim what they have been led to believe is their rightful property. […]
[…] I wonder if the young ladies of the anti-choice rallies are permitted to know exactly what their older and male comrades are thinking about when they look at them.* […]
[…] I wonder if the young ladies of the anti-choice rallies are permitted to know exactly what their older and male comrades are thinking about when they look at them.* […]