I appreciate bean’s concern about the description of a woman’s body (or the parts therein) as a “factory” in a political environment where there’s powerful forces centered around making sure that women really are treated like baby factories that are properly owned and operated by their patriarchally appointed male guardians. It would be really easy to deliberately misread this cartoon in just such a manner. But I’ll admit, when I first saw the cartoon posted, my first thought was, “If all men could come around to thinking about women’s bodies in just this manner, there would be no anti-choice movement in the U.S.” What made the cartoon endearing and funny is how respectful the male figure is towards the female figure, in his own eccentric way. It’s startling, too, because we so rarely hear men openly frame women’s procreative powers as “neat” or using language that shows a full understanding that such powers belong to the women who hold them alone and not to anyone else.
Women’s bodies are pretty damn neat. Part of the reason I find myself drawn to writing so much about reproductive rights is because I think that women’s bodies are neat. It’s ironic that I don’t ever want to have children myself, but my attitude about it is roughly the same as my attitude towards scientists—I am mildly obsessed with admiring the whole shebang without feeling a need to get personally involved. I think biology is neat and human evolution is neat, and the ground zero of where all this begins—in the womb—is neat. I never want to have a baby, but upon learning that one theory about why women menstruate so damn much is that we have to get a jumpstart on building the placenta to nurse the giant brains of human beings, well, I was kind of awed and felt a lot better about dealing with my period, which is mainly experienced by me as a nuisance. But it’s a nuisance that evolved so I could have a giant brain, so that’s pretty fucking cool.
And I think that it’s because women are so neat that is precisely why sexism is more often better described as misogyny. A great deal of the anger and oppression of women stems from male resentment (held by some, not all—standard disclaimer) of the things that make women neat. We all know the general outline of what happens when a group commonly held as somehow inferior to another has something the dominant group thinks they don’t deserve. Think of the boiling resentment aimed at people of color who draw government-funded benefits, of gays who want to get married and live happily ever after, of racial minorities who achieve middle class successes. Hell, anti-Semitism is one of the best historical examples you can imagine—the real hatred stirred up against Jews was based on stories about illegitimate access to money and power.
You really see a lot of misogynist energy expended on hating women for perceived illegitimate control over certain assets. The crazed anti-choicer cannot stand that the ability to make a baby belongs to the inferior sex, and as such demands the right to control when and how that ability is put to use. The drooling fascination a lot of our culture has with female beauty is understandable insofar as women’s beauty truly is neat, but let’s face it—much of the fascination is hostile. Instead of being pleased with beauty, our culture objectifies, demeans, hurts and humiliates because there’s so much resentment about it. Images of impossibly perfect (airbrushed, surgically altered) bodies are held up in contrast to tabloid pictures that have a near-moral outrage that famous women have imperfect biological bodies, and may have a small wrinkle of fat when they bend over, or a softness in the read end. Lindsay Lohan poses naked, but it’s not enough for us to look at her lovely body and enjoy it—no, she has to imitate Marilyn Monroe’s last pin-up sitting, casting a hateful death wish over the whole situation. Rape and other violence against women dovetails nicely with the anti-choice philosophy—it’s so much about control and punishment over women for being autonomous human beings, with all that implies.
Men have to deal with this fact, that women are different and have control over those neat bodies. (Women have to deal with it vis a vis men, too, and while it’s less a political issue, there are certainly areas where some women have boundary issues in terms of respecting male autonomy. For instance, some women really do believe they have a right to demand male partners give up masturbation.) You can’t ignore the tension in hopes it’ll go away, especially since men get a million messages every day about how it’s normal and right to treat women like property. In my experience, the men who cope best are the ones who have the attitude I perceive in the above comic—you think it’s neat, but without resentment. In the comments at LGM, I described it as similar towards my attitude about musicians. I’m incapable of doing what they do, the difference between me and them can create pangs of jealousy, but I cope by remembering that I have my own talents, and take a stance of gratitude that people with talent share them with the world, directly benefiting me. Let go of jealousy and power issues, and learn to appreciate, in other words.
71 Responses to “Musings on autonomy”
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>
the first time I saw this- I focused on the word “factory”; but then, I had to take the whole message and picture into context. that reverence for what the female body can do- that’s what people should be focusing on.
the cartoon got me thinking that people (especially men) who want to control reproductive rights, might just be, I don’t know- jealous? that’s probably not what motivates the control movement- but when one looks at this comic, how else to explain?
I probably won’t choose to reproduce, myself, but I wish that more people viewed women’s bodies this way.
“Look what her body can do!”, versus, “God, those out-of-control-womens- gotta be careful- they’ll pull a pregnancy on ya, or dare to have a kid all on their own!”
anyway, my boyfriend and I were looking at xkcd’s comics this weekend and laughing; and agreed that this particular one was spot-on.
o/t: my favorites are the ball pit one and the reverse-spinning in the bedroom one.
It probably also helps if you’re familiar with xkcd in general–I mean, that comic was the same week as http://xkcd.com/385/ . So I was automatically inclined to give the author the benefit of the doubt.
I liked it because there’s no presumption of ownership. The stickman in the cartoon could be the baby-daddy, the woman’s friend or family member.
Presumed ownership and rulership is what drives me bats about the no-choice deadbeats.
To them, I’ll rote repeat myself they game the airwaves by rhapsodizing about the spiritual “duty” of women to be baby “factories” and mommies NOT by choice. NotSoFastPal …
Where did you get your legal, moral or ethical standing to be here? Where’s your invitation or permission slip to be in my bedroom, doctor’s, lawyer’s or spiritual counsel’s appointment(s)? Your qualification?
This cartoon illustrates exactly how I feel about the power of women’s bodies, and I’m a woman. “My body can do WHAT?! Awesome!” In a few years we won’t even need men in order to perform the magic of species prorogation; we’ll be able to join two eggs and make more women!
Men’s bodies for some reason don’t elicit as much awe in me. “You can pee standing up without dribbling urine down your leg? Cool, I guess.”
Biology and society are such big, all-encompassing topics that all sorts of reasons exist for things that come across (often because they just plain are) as sexism. I think a lot of the reason I like (not all, but a large enough amount of) porn is jealousy for lovely women parts. Sure, I also like to be turned on by something so overtly sexual too. But I really, in sexual moments, am jealous of such sensitive nipples, the large amounts of internal workings, and all the sheer power of a sexual woman getting it on. It’s fascinating and awe-inspiring and so damn pretty as well. I can certainly understand why so many men (and women) are scared shitless at the prospect of multiple orgasms, reproductive power, and even beauty.
After all, in the wrong bodies, such abilities might lead to some people having a hell of a lot of fun and causing those with hangups to miss out on it all!
excuse me, excuse me….
this is not just another ‘cartoon’, this is ‘xkcd’, an internet cult classic.
plenty of feminism statement in the site
http://xkcd.com/291/
http://xkcd.com/385/
http://xkcd.com/382/
http://xkcd.com/350/
http://xkcd.com/344/
http://xkcd.com/343/
http://xkcd.com/342/
http://xkcd.com/341/
http://xkcd.com/340/
http://xkcd.com/308/
http://xkcd.com/302/
This one was so funny, it actually change google metric
http://xkcd.com/369/
My only problem with it is that factory implies mass production and I’ve always preferred individually crafted.
The word “contain” in this comic is important to me: you *contain* a factory, not you *are* a factory. That’s a distinction often lost on anti-choicers (forgetting that women are people).
Also, part of the comic is the text displayed when your mouse hovers over it; in this one it’s “We are sexy, sexy Von Neumann machines.”
Not to mention http://xkcd.com/322/.I didn’t see it as sexist b/c I’ve read xkcd before, and also the stickman’s saying she *contains* a factory for making more of *her*. He’s not saying ‘you are factory to make more of me’ in an ownership relationship.
Related to womanly autonomy but off-topic: I LOVED Jon Stewart last night. When the original song indie folk won, the man was allowed to give a great little speech, but when the woman approached the mike, the assholes in charge not only started up the music, but cut her mike.
Cause she’s just a woman, just a girlfriend, just a wife, nothing worth listening to.
Jon Stewart recognized the misogyny of the moment (even if he didn’t recognize the misogyny consciously) and brought her back on stage to give her speech! It was a lovely speech as well, but remarkable b/c I’ve never seen anyone brought back out before, and remarkable b/c Jon Stewart did it for a woman who may never be anywhere near the Oscars again.
It was such a highlight, even the gossiptwerps on TV this morning were talking about it.
I loved this xkcd, personally.
And the stick-figure guy basically gives the woman all ownership over her body. There’s no attempt to co-opt the uterus. He’s acknowledging the wonder of its existence.
That said, I’m an ex-Mormon, so I have the unexpected association with Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer’s infamous anti-masturbation talk, where he refers to male genitalia as a “little factory”. (Said talk is a gold-mine of misogyny and homophobia mixed in with bad, bad metaphors.) Link: http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
More on-topic, I always feel like forced-birth folk don’t give women nearly enough credit for how incredible baby-making is.
Yeah, they bleat about what a wonderful miracle it is, but they don’t ever really acknowledge the reality of the effort.
They romanticize mothers choosing to die in childbirth, but even then, they don’t seem to realize that a real choice exists or the effort a pregnant woman puts out.
I think everyone should be extremely grateful to their mothers for going through the sacrifices and ordeal of pregnancy. It should really be honored–someone went through all this hassle for you, when they didn’t have to.
I thought about terminating twice, but I didn’t. It was the right choice for me both times, but I think it was important to consider the options. And choosing to carry to term seems like it’s just taken for granted so much.
Not that mothers and motherhood should be glorified, or that the choice to be a mother is better than the choice not to be a mother. Just an acknowledgment that the choice is *B*I*G*, with huge, long-term ramifications either way, and as such, the women who make the choices should be honored.
I guess that’s why I like the cartoon. The stickman is impressed that stickwoman can make stickbabies, but he’s not telling her she has to use the factory or trying to control her factory. He just thinks it’s “neat” that she has that power.
I think we could use more of that sentiment.
And if you go further back, you get comics like this. xkcd is one of my favorite web comics, of course I’m a math person.
Caren @ 10:51
Yes, exactly. Parenting is a huge responsibility with awesome spiritual rewards. That tendency of the so-called “pro” life goon squad to regard it as punishment for sexual activity should be a dead giveaway of their motivation.
My message to movement conservatives that presume they have extra-judicial ownership, propriety and the “right” of persecution over women’s (and other) personal lives is:
Don’t tell me who I can love (as a partner, parent, student, friend) … don’t tell me who I can adore (as a spiritual entity, humanity, reason, craft — or where I draw inspiration and wisdom.)
People have been quoting xkcd a lot lately. When doing so, could you also bring over the “title” text in the image code? I consider it an important part of the comic (it shows up as a tooltip on mouseover).
For this one, the mouseover text is “We are sexy, sexy Von Neumann machines.”
I’m a woman who is what you’d call “anti-choice.” I’m sure I must hate myself
…and “We are sexy, sexy Von Neumann machines” provides a clarification of what Randall Munroe means by the word “factory.”
I, also, liked it, especially because I’m thinking about having another kid soon, and my husband and I sometimes jokingly refer to making babies as my superpower. This whole push to redefine an embryo as a human being really does diminish what women do when they carry a pregnancy to term. They take a clump of cells and turn them into a person. That’s the “Holy Shit!” of it all that hit me when I first held my son - all of a sudden there was another person here, when before there had not been. If you define life - and more importantly, personhood - as beginning at conception, you make the wee wigglers the most important part of the whole thing, and really ignore what it takes to turn those cells into a baby. As many things as can go wrong in that process, it’s pretty amazing it works as often as it does.
This might seem unrelated, but I don’t think it is … In the NYT this weekend, there was a commentary piece about the “study” that found teenage boys care about relationships and not just sex. In referring to the tendency by adult men (formerly teenage boys themselves) to dismiss those findings, the author of a book on the emotional lives of boys said that many men don’t like to admit how incredibly dependent they are emotionally on the women in their lives. So they demean the notion that boys desire real relationships with girls. I think there is a lot of misplaced jealousy in misogyny.
It’s also fairly important to read the mouse-over comment on xkcd. In the cartoon in question, the mouse-over text is “We are sexy, sexy Von Neumann machines.”
In the context of Von Neumann machines and self-replicating systems, the term “factory” is nowhere near as loaded as it seem from a literary or philosophical point of view.
And the Von Neumann reference just reinforces the idea that the woman is *self* replicating as opposed to *male owner* replicating, I think.
…not to mention that “factory” is a common concept in object oriented programming
I have always been pro-choice. At the age of 33, I got pregnant on purpose. I had a lovely, easy pregnancy. No morning sickness, no fatigue. Just a little carpal tunnel in both wrists (which like 30% of pregnant women get, but I’d never heard of that side effect…).
I had a great baby boy who CRIED for 7 months. I swear, he was something like 3 minutes under the cut off for officially having colic. It was intensely stressful. When he started daycare, the whole family was sick constantly from June through November. I just had three surgical procedures to fix the internal plumbing damage that 6 months of coughing did to me. There is nothing like having a kid to acquaint you with needles, and more people looking at your vagina and ass than you ever thought possible. If I had sold tickets, I’d be rich by now.
All of that was worth it to me, but having now actually experienced the whole childbirth, infant care situation, I am ADAMANTLY pro-choice. No one should be forced to do this. Going through the fear and risk and expense of pregnancy and childbirth to give a baby up for adoption is not a negligible effort that selfish women don’t want to be bothered with. It is a major life disruption, and can be a life ender.
I’ve heard the idea what once you have a child of your own you will be pro-life, and I very much disagree. The longer I was pregnant, the more I realized how horrifying the situation would be if it was not by my choice. How incredibly psychologically damaging the whole process would be if I had been raped, or if I had decided that having a child was physically/emotionally/financially not an option for me at that time (if ever).
My choice and the outcome are precious to me. I can only assume that the same is true for every other women (and man) on the planet.
The comments at LGM are a gas—one petulant asshole claiming that the attempts to deprive women of basic rights are “not about you” (aimed at me). Like, “Yes, we want to oppress you, but remember that you mean so little to us that we can’t even make the oppression of you about you.”
Forgive the thread drift, but I just wanted to say that this sentiment resonates with me quite a bit, especially in light of last night’s Oscars. I generally enjoy pop culture, but for some irrational reason, when I see shows like the Oscars, I often think, “That’s pretty cool…what the hell am I doing with my life?”
I know, it doesn’t make sense…
#16: Not exactly. I think that you figure that if you hate other women enough, you get an exemption from being a bitch like the rest of them. We call it being an Uncle Tom.
The belly is awesome. I wish I could love it every day
Most anti-choicers make no direct verbal reference to the woman at all when they talk about forcing her through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. They reference the fetus alone, and get very, very uptight when you insist on reframing the debate in terms of the women being forced.
A perfect example of this was a column Monsignor Bruce Kent wrote last year opposing Amnesty International’s decision to formally oppose forced pregnancy and denial of post-abortion health care as part of their support of human rights worldwide.
You can read the whole column and find no admission that what Bruce Kent is saying is that people who care about human rights should stand back and do nothing as rape victims are forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will: and no reference at all to the issue of denial of health care to women who have had illegal abortions. Yet Bruce Kent, who posed successfully until Tuesday September 25 2007 as a man of considerable compassion, is in fact arguing that it is wrong not to force a raped woman to give birth against her will. He’s just framing it in terms of the fetal lives potentially saved, and so can avoid mentioning the forced and suffering women at all.
That’s anti-choice. The kneeling man respectfully acknowledging the wonder of a woman being able to make babies: that’s not.
When I saw that comic, I thought, The guy who writes XKCD never met me. If someone said that to me, I’d say, “Neat? You think so? If you want it, you can have it!”
I think biology is quite fascinating, but I wouldn’t call it “neat.” My fascination is rather akin to watching a car accident — I really can’t help but see the jury-rigged aspects of life. That’s evolution in action — life works, but it only just works.
We’re more like artisan workshops, not factories. Building a baby is like building a fancy bike- one baby will take months to put together, it’s usually best to work on one at a time, and you can’t replicate your successes exactly.
Kate H, I’m the same way. My mother told me once that after I got pregnant and felt the baby moving around, I’d be pro-life, but it really was just the opposite. Not that them moving around made me more pro-choice — I loved that part — but the rest of the side effects. All three of my children were very much planned and wanted, and I tried to enjoy being pregnant as much as I could, but the hip/pelvic pain, nausea, being unable to walk around without pain, etc. were not fun, and if I hadn’t planned the pregnancies, I’m sure I would have felt extremely resentful the whole time. Being pregnant is *hard work*! As much as I love my children, and the idea of being pregnant, the actual process was pretty craptastic, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy if she didn’t want children.
I saw it as geeky, innocent wonder, but I was concerned how it would be received now that xkcd has become more visible to the toobz traveling public. Glad to see I was wrong to worry. On the other hand:
No! No! xkcd can’t become popular! It’s supposed to be a secret open only to us true fans (geeky people who live a hermit-like existence). I used to thing xkcd was cool, but now they’re just a bunch of sell-outs.
At the risk of summarizing the summary, I would add: ‘let go of fear’ as I think it’s the basis these.
The patriarchal version would read “It’s neat how you contain a factory for making more of me.”
I also assumed it was a reference to the factory pattern in programming, not that that necessarily makes a difference to your interpretation…
I like this. The gargantuan faceless heads that somehow convey expression, the guy’s tiny hand on his chin, the way the girl is stepping back all “…Whoa.” Cute.
one petulant asshole claiming that the attempts to deprive women of basic rights are “not about you” (aimed at me).
I like how he’s pissed that you can call women Uncle Toms, but if he did that he’d be called a misogynist. How unfair that all insults to individual women, groups of women, or all women everywhere aren’t treated identically.
I just wish I believed that more men feel this way. The way our society is set up to deny choices for women makes me think that’s not the case. Not only do we have the anti-choice movement but so many little things, like our belief that people should prioritize work over everything else because taking time off to care for children or because of health issues is viewed as a betrayal of the generosity of employers. And the whole beauty culture takes on a new and unpleasant meaning if you’re the sort of person who will never measure up to the standard no matter what you do.
No, somehow I suspect most men are very, very relieved that they don’t have to go through life with a body that society regards as somehow “wrong.”
My friend was going on and on about how “neat” breasts were when his wife was pregnant. He had the same type of attitude that the kneeling man in that cartoon has and it was awesome. He’s a great father and husband.
thanks for this post, Amanda. it’s a keeper.
OT:
I generally enjoy pop culture, but for some irrational reason, when I see shows like the Oscars, I often think, “That’s pretty cool…what the hell am I doing with my life?”
I know, it doesn’t make sense…
Linneaus, I know exactly what you mean. when I listen to my favorite music, it makes me want to do good things, or at least be better, in some small way.
/OT
I generally enjoy pop culture, but for some irrational reason, when I see shows like the Oscars, I often think, “That’s pretty cool…what the hell am I doing with my life?”
Try having two film degrees and the same thought as you watch someone younger than you win the screenwriting award. Feh.
(Not that she didn’t deserve it, but it’s still depressing.)
The patriarchal version would read “It’s neat how you contain a factory for making more of me.”
Or (and this gets at why this cartoon ISN’T sexist, in my eyes) the patriarchal version would read “It’s neat how you ARE a factory for making more of me.” It’s the fundamental difference between being the factory and owning the factory that makes this cartoon non-sexist.
That’s the comment I was going to make!
Seriously, though, I’ve got a friend who’s about 33 weeks pregnant with her first child. It’s a daughter; in-the-womb pictures show she already has my friend’s nose. It really is “more of her.” Hearing about the whole experience is incredibly neat. But it’s obviously physically and emotionally taxing — and this is a planned, deeply wanted baby.
I volunteer at the local abortion clinic and the protesters there are your standard antis. Lately we’ve had one of them commenting on the escort coordinator’s blog, and although he’s not articulate or rational, his anger at women is palpable and a little bit scary. He hates us for rejecting our “natural” role. He compares it to wanting to castrate men. He could hardly make it more obvious that it’s about male power to him.
Ha! We just had a Bound4Life pray-in/protest at the clinic (the people with the red tape across their mouths) and the Facebook event page said “We are not against women’s rights, or people who are pro-choice we are simply for LIFE.” Uh, yeah. If you just wanted to pray for the souls of the unborn, you could do that in private. Staging a public protest of abortion rights in front of an abortion clinic? That’s a political statement. That’s against women’s rights. I don’t understand how these people’s minds work (if work they do).
I should add that I think too many women actually buy the “not about you” line. So many women think they would never have an abortion, they are more responsible, more tender-hearted, more whatever than women who do have abortions, and so they support abortion rights half-heartedly or not at all.
heh. “not familiar enough”.
from the comments I guess I was supposed to point out that my boyfriend and I were revisiting
GEEZ.
xkcb? or, am I supposed to point out that I have a paying job, non-paying job, finishing up my full-time grad school “fun-time”- no time on the internet at either of my jobs…
John L my boyfriend is a math person, himself (going for his Ph.D.). so, I was disappointed to find the store closed, as I had been hoping to get “Useless” made into a shirt, for him.
not sure that he’d wear it out of the loft, though…
perhaps by his birthday?
oh, and who can resist “nerd girls”?
Would anyone feel differently about the cartoon if it said “workshop” instead of “factory”?
Ergo, the popularity of Scientology and “Kaballah”.
I remember reading that Kim Gordon once said that she thought people came to Sonic Youth shows, “to watch people believe in themselves”. Maybe it’s a bit of the same phenomenon.
And Amanda, could you explain more about that really cool idea about the purpose of menstruation? I took a human evolution/physical anthropology course in college, which was one of the best classes I’ve ever taken — I very clearly remember studying the relationship between cranial size and gestation period (short version — humans are born about 2 months premature compared to other primates because our heads are so big), but I don’t remember that point about menstruation and the placenta. Of course it was over 20 years ago, so maybe this idea hadn’t been developed yet, or maybe I’ve just forgotten!
the people with the red tape across their mouths
I never really understood what that was supposed to mean.
Dennis, right on.
On another note, it depresses the hell out of me that I never thought about the human body that way, and I HAVE a “factory for making more.” Perhaps it was just backlash against all the people that would try to make me think that making more is all I’m for.
Well, I don’t know if it’s a “purpose”, but I read—maybe in Natalie Angier’s book Woman that the nutrient needs to grow a human brain are part of the reason that the uterus basically gets a jump start. I might be wrong on the explanation, but I do know that there’s some link.
For instance, some women really do believe they have a right to demand male partners give up masturbation.
Really? I’ve totally never heard of that. Is this something you’ve actually read or heard or just something apocryphal?
Ergo, the popularity of Scientology and “Kaballah”.
Their true popularity is that they’re great for networking. Once you can get in, you have a group of powerful people who are interested in getting you work so you can continue to pay for your membership.
Well, that’s how it works in Scientology, anyway. Not sure Kabbalah has quite the same network built up yet.
“Is this something you’ve actually read or heard or just something apocryphal?”
It shows up in sex-advice columns every so often. Usually the letter is from a woman who considers it a form of infidelity and is having trouble getting her boyfriend/husband to stop, or from a man whose girlfriend/wife is badgering him stop and isn’t sure what to do (refuse, agree but do it anyway in a more discrete manner, or agree and try to stop) and/or doesn’t really get why she’s asking them to do that. It seems to correlate pretty strongly with insecurity and religious/social conservative folks, which isn’t surprising since it’s not unheard-of in fundie circles to consider mutual-use sex toys a form of adultery.
The only time I’ve seen the genders flipped was a commenter over at Feministing whose boyfriend insisted she could only use toys when they were together, in addition to other controlling behavior. I imagine more men would try that tack, but the usual suspects are as likely as not to assume that women don’t have the sex drive to prompt masturbation.
Please. People are talking about pregnancy almost as if they’re worshipping it.
It’s an animal function - mice do it, guinea pigs do it, and fleas are too educated to do it. There is nothing which seperates a human from any other mammal in pregnancy except:
i, At the other end of the spinal column, there happens to be a human being. This is why the males in my (matriarchial farming) family were taught to be solicitous of pregnant women - they’re people, and they’re going through something pretty worrying. That’s worthy of respect.
It’s also why de jure and de facto reproductive rights are important - because women are first and foremost people, and control over something so vital is necessary for their autonomy. Not because of the Mystical Womenly Power of Pregnancy.
ii, the nine months of bodily activity by the woman are followed by 18+ years of conscious commitment, hopefully by both woman and man. It’s these which are the better test of character - being a parent as opposed to bearing a baby. Giving birth does NOT produce a person - loving a baby produces a person.
Yeah, it’s neat - but some of the comments here are investing it with near-religious significance. I can’t help thinking of the morons who associate penile erections with power.
It is what it is.
It is, of course, the most mundane thing in the world and how we all got here. That is part of the amazingness.
And this statement makes no sense. I may be the person I am today because someone loved me as a baby, but that I exist at all is entirely due to my mother choosing to carry me to term. Is an unloved baby not a person?
Your comment adds up to “how dare you think you’re special.” I don’t privelege pregnancy and childbirth and motherhood above other experiences in women’s lives, and I don’t think I’m special because I’ve had these experiences. But if every now and then, I’d like to step back and contemplate it with the same sense of wonder I feel at a wicked summer thunderstorm or the way shoots grow and flowers bloom in the spring, I’d like to be permitted my sense of wonder without some asshole coming along and saying “well, shit, it’s just weather and weather happens every day.”
It’s supposed to symbolize the silencing of the unborn or something like that. Why the tape has “LIFE” written on it is another question — are the unborn being gagged by life? What?
Add to that the fact that most of the Bound4Life people in my neck of the woods are young women (the non-Bound4Life protesters are mostly middle-aged men) and you have…a bunch of young women binding and gagging themselves for Jesus. NOT the best symbolism IMO.
Oh, Mnemosyne. That’s so cynical. Are those your body thetans talking?
No, seriously, I’m sure you’re right. I remember reading an article in the NYT or somewhere about “Kaballah” and how lots of people were coming to the Centers with no real idea of what was going on — just that they wanted to be where the cool people were so they could meet them!
On the other hand, I think it’s not an accident that both organizations prey on the incredibly random nature of success in Hollywood. For every successful actor, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of equally talented waiters who will never get their big break. I’m sure the same goes for screenwriters as well as lots of others. But Scientology and “Kaballah” both teach that nothing is random. All events in life are caused, or at least strongly influenced, by the individual’s ability to understand and control the awesome, divine power they possess deep within (and which the Organization will help you access for a series of large fees).
The successful person likes being told that they have their millions because of something they must have done right. The unsuccessful person likes believing that they will be successful, once they’re “clear” or once the’ve drunk 100 gallons of Kaballah water or whatever.
Amanda, thanks for the explanation re: placentas. Really, anyone who thinks an omniscient God deliberately designed large-brained bipeds with our spines and hips must think that God has a pretty sick sense of humor.
I’ve got a fundamentalist Christian in-law who, in his blog, compares masturbation not just to adultery but to sexual abuse. I think that outside of fundie circles it’s mostly young, insecure, inexperienced women who object to their male partners masturbating because they’ve been led to believe sexuality should be always and only a tool for the expression of love rather than something that can exist for its own sake.
I’m inclined to see some patriarchy-induced insecurity at work there too; women are taught that we should be able to “satisfy” our male partners completely and that if they seek sexual release that doesn’t involve us, it means they think we’re deficient in some way.
That said, I haven’t entirely put my finger on the distinction between wanting your partner not to masturbate (which I think is unreasonable) and wanting your partner not to have sex with other partners (which I don’t think is unreasonable). Is it just the fact that we have intimate relationships with our own bodies no matter what, while partnered sex has to be sought out? Or is it more of a practical issue (disease and the like not being issues with solo sex)?
Yeah, Kristen, that’s part of my coping mechanism; when I see people do well, I try to use that as motivation for my own work.
Which brings me to…
Funny you should mention that, Mnemosyne, because Diablo Cody is exactly the example I had in mind when talking about having small pangs of envy. I don’t write what she writes, but writing is a big part of what I do for a living, so I identify a little more with her and others like her in the realm of pop culture.
Oops, I’m drifting again…
It’s supposed to symbolize the silencing of the unborn or something like that. Why the tape has “LIFE” written on it is another question — are the unborn being gagged by life? What?
the first time I saw these ‘red-tape people’ was on news reports from outside of Terri Schiavo’s hospice, and I just thought ‘WTF?’ only later did I see the red tape at forced preganncy protests. and you’re right, Elinor, everyone I saw with a taped mouth was a young woman. none of the men were ‘gagged.’
I’ve seen this work in the other direction with men who get unnerved by their female partners’ use of sex toys because they think that means they’re not doing a good enough job as a sexual partner. Now there are some differences in terms of how a lot of men frame this insecurity, but it’s insecurity all the same.
somewhat off topic, i find this sentiment quite nice.
On topic, it strikes me that this cartoon hits the balance that many men (more than the media, and often the men themselves) really do feel re: pregnancy. They are impressed, and they’re puzzled (both valid responses). The less secure they are, the more likely they are to turn (or be influenced by media/culture to turn) that puzzlement into resentment.
This is something I’ve thought about in considering the question of just what is valuable about monogamy. I can’t speak for everyone, certainly, but my take would be something like “a monogamous relationship includes a mutual agreement not to initiate sexual relations with any new people.” Generally speaking, everyone already has a sexual relationship with themselves, which relationship plays a key element in satisfying sex with their monogamous partner. So saying “let’s both agree not to sleep with anyone else” is agreeing not to pursue the creation of some new sexual relationship, while “no masturbation” is asking someone to cut off a relationship that’s inherently part of themselves.
(And all this, of course, doesn’t apply in the context of relationships where rules like “no masturbation” are part of a purposely-adopted BDSM relation between partners….)
Pesto:
On the other hand, I think it’s not an accident that both organizations prey on the incredibly random nature of success in Hollywood.
That has a HUGE amount to do with it. It’s not that you’re guaranteed success if you join Scientology or Kabbalah, but you increase your odds of meeting someone who can help your career. Not to mention the whole cult aspect of having strict rules that are a relief to abide by, because having everything be random is just too fucking scary.
Linnaeus:
Funny you should mention that, Mnemosyne, because Diablo Cody is exactly the example I had in mind when talking about having small pangs of envy.
Bachelor’s in Critical Studies, MFA in Screenwriting. At least I was able to tell myself that Sofia Coppola got to where she was because she had family connections.
But I’m not bitter.
Elinor, because masturbation isn’t really a threat. Another person that your partner is fucking is a giant threat for most people. I know some people can pull off polyamory or whatever you’d like to call it with aplomb, and I admire their superhuman abilities to manage jealousy. Monogamy is about sharing your sexuality only with another person at this point in time. Masturbation is about having a sexuality. And if you squelch that sexuality, you don’t really have one to share, do you? Forbidding masturbation is basically about forbidding the person to have independent ownership over their own bodies, basically laying claim to their sexuality. At what point monogamy isn’t about a private agreement to share your sexuality only with each other, but about laying claim to someone else, which is unacceptable.
It’s the difference, I think, between the unhealthy codependent model of relationships where your identities blend together and the healthier model where you are separate people who choose to be together. Unfortunately, dependence has been held up as a norm for so long that this sort of thing confuses people. As a feminist, I see how the dependency model of relationships that we deem romantic is often about making it hard for women to extract themselves from oppressive situations, so I’m super hostile to it. Love is more fun when you maintain separate identities.
The first time I saw that I thought it was a pro-choice protest, to the tune of “the pro-life agenda silences/ignores/oppresses women.”
Jan Andrea and kate h.-
thanks for your comments- I’m glad that there are people like you out there in internet land.
Not much else to add but I thought that both of your comments encapsulated why I really don’t want to give birth/be pregnant.
I would adopt, sure, if I really wanted a kid but I just don’t think that pregnancy is for me.
Jan Andrea and kate h.-
thanks for your comments- I’m glad that there are people like you out there in internet land.
Not much else to add but I thought that both of your comments encapsulated why I really don’t want to give birth/be pregnant.
I would adopt, sure, if I really wanted a kid but I just don’t think that pregnancy is for me.
It’s an animal function - mice do it, guinea pigs do it, and fleas are too educated to do it.
It’s still pretty cool when they do it, too. A lot of animals can fly under their own power- but that doesn’t stop me from seeing a hummingbird and thinking “Wow. That’s kinda awesome.”
It’s these which are the better test of character - being a parent as opposed to bearing a baby. Giving birth does NOT produce a person - loving a baby produces a person.
1. I don’t think that anyone was suggesting that carrying a fetus is somehow a test of character- only that it’s sort of awesome.
2. “loving a baby” does not, in fact, produce a person. Personhood doesn’t rely on having loving parents. At least, no definition of personhood I’ve ever seen.
Yeah, it’s neat - but some of the comments here are investing it with near-religious significance. I can’t help thinking of the morons who associate penile erections with power.
Well, for some people, it can be a near-religious experience. I don’t think it’s fair to call them morons, but, that’s me.
Using the word “factory” in this sense probably comes from the technology/engineering/math/science focus of the comic. In many comics, scientific principles are attached to everyday concepts like dating. I don’t think this comic is anything more than that. Referring to reproductive organs as “factories” instead of what they really are recontextualizes them for the nerdy character, who realizes a new understanding of what women are.
Plus, as Marcotte put it in the post, “What made the cartoon endearing and funny is how respectful the male figure is towards the female figure, in his own eccentric way.”
You know, I don’t see an inherent problem with treating pregnancy as special, spiritual, etc., etc. Many of the most profound events in people’s lives are in fact incredibly mundane — falling in love, having children, the deaths of close relatives, etc.
That does clarify it for me. Thank you. The notion of being someone’s ONLY source of orgasms is pretty unpleasant to me (what if I’m not in the mood? I need this guilt?), but I’m really impatient with “no one should be monogamous” arguments, and was having trouble articulating the difference.
I like how pro-choice women (and men) are elightened egalitarians and pro-life women are the unfortunate victims of misogyny, wholly lacking in the ability to apply autonomous reasoning to the issue.
Those pitiable conservative women. They remind me of poor people.
and pro-life women are the unfortunate victims of misogyny, wholly lacking in the ability to apply autonomous reasoning to the issue.
Oh no. Pro-life women are pro-choice for themselves. Pro-life women who want to prevent other women from choosing are active agents in enforcing misogyny.
They shouldn’t remind you of poor people: they are the ones who are forcing misery and death on poor people. The whole point of being pro-life is that you know what’s best for other women - far better than those women can know for themselves.
“The whole point of being pro-life is that you know what’s best for other women - far better than those women can know for themselves.”
Given the religious orientation of most “pro life” adherents, they are absolutely certain they KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR EVERYBODY.
They may be targeting women right now, but we’re all on their list…