Disappointing but too too predictable story by Catherine Dunphy - "The new face of the abortion debate" - in the current issue of Rogers Communications' Chatelaine.
The zinger at the end of the lead paragraph:
"...Meanwhile, women on the pro-life side want the feminist movement to open itself up to their voices, too."
Yeah. We'll never be done with this debate, will we? Chatelaine is a middle-of-the-road women's magazine, no real feminist leaning beyond their more recent attempt to get away from endless dieting articles, so it's not surprising to see this.
Speaking of that article, a bunch of us friends of Jessica Yee were thrilled to see her featured in that article as one of the new faces of feminist activism around reproductive choice. She writes for rabble, too!
It's good for feminists like Jessica to get into the mainstream and show people that this is what a pro-choice feminist looks like. I also like that they showed another pro-choice feminist holding a baby and being maternal, which busts the stereotype of us being nasty women who hate kids.
""...Meanwhile, women on the pro-life side want the feminist movement to open itself up to their voices, too.""
Well...that is mighty privileged of them, after all they want us to open to their voices, yet they do not want to open to our voices!
That really translates into, "we do not want your voices heard at all, it should just be our voices heard" Kinda like some people who come here demanding that we open to right wing dialogue, which really means; "we want to silence your voices even in your space" with the implied message; "we think you are bleeding heart/"fair" minded enough to let us destroy you in your own space". Or in other words; "we think you are too stupid to realize what we are doing".
The questions is; "are we"?
Once upon a time, Chatelaine named Chantal Daigle as their Woman of the Year. Sigh.
Thanks for pointing out the positive in that article, Michelle. I heard Jessica Yee in Ottawa and thought she was awesome! But a "debate"... no way we want to go back there.
Are you saying Jessica Yee wants to debate it?
Sorry if this was unclear because I lumped two points together. Yee gave an awesome speech at the Jane Doe conference, but no, I don't think she wants to reopen any "debate".
Here is what the article tells about her:
"Jessica Yee, a Toronto-based 23-year-old activist, in action. "She's a force of nature, a sign of what's to come," Rebick says. Intense and intelligent, Yee is in demand as a youth facilitator, community organizer and speaker at pro-choice events, student gatherings and diversity panels, where she draws a connection between racism and the oppression of women. She was inspired in part by the experiences of her Mohawk mother, who endured two illegal abortions as a teenager. Yee spends her time crossing the continent. I caught up with her last summer via her cellphone. She was on her way to Minneapolis to work with the Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition. "Part of the solution to ending the cycle of negativity in our communities is to take ownership of our bodies again," she tells me. "Knowing your own body and that you have rights over it is fundamental to people building themselves up."
How prepostourous.
Just when you think Canada has a slight chance of becoming progressive, they allow people to publish this sort of hatred encouraging the slavery of women. This should be illegal and the author of the article, as well as the editors of Chatelaine should be brought up on charges of hate crimes.
uh?...
I wouldn't go that far. It would be a pretty scary place if an article like this was illegal. From what I can tell, they weren't encouraging anything.
I think it's important for feminists to stay on top of any anti-choice activism that's emerging - there seems to be a resurgence of it, and a lot of us younger women maybe take our legal rights for granted, having had abortion be legal during most if not all of our reproductive years.
It's important for us to make sure that we're well-represented in mainstream news and magazines on this issue. And we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that anti-choice activism doesn't exist, or demand that other news agencies do so. We have to face it head on instead of shooting the messenger.
Of course, it can be argued, whether Chatelaine is acting as the messenger here, or if they're taking a hand in creating the message. I lean towards the former. I think there has been a huge shift to the right by the culture warriors, and they're gathering strength. At least in this article, they're giving a fair hearing to the pro-choice side.
Forcing women to conceive against their will, and essentially making them human incubators is slavery - pure and simple.
Do you honestly think that if Chatelaine printed an article advocating for capturing Africans and using them as slaves, that it would not be clearly viewed as a hate crime?
In my mind, it's pretty clear.
All anti-choice arguments are pro-slavery and therefore a hate crime.
I didn't read the article as I won't in support such a backwards publication in any way, but whether they are advocating female slavery or simply providing a platform for hatemongers to express their opinion, it's a very thin theoretical difference.
Well, you know, I agree with feathersky here about forced pregnacy being slavery and that any literature promoting it, can be seen as the promotion of slavery. Seriously think about it and what it means to be deprived of freedom to self determine.
Over the course of yesterday and today, I have been speaking with a woman who has had an oopsy at 37, and is pentacostal indoctrinated, though now lapsed.
Most certainly, she feels as if she was being forced to be an incubator against her will, having just had another child last year. Her partner is/was trying to force her to have it, as well as her mother. Indeed she was threatened with disassociation by both, and her partner went so far as to throw her out of the house physically when she said she was not going to continue with it, as not only does she not want it, she has almost died in childbirth twice before. He wants her pregnant and that's it, as it is a control mechanism for him, and not religion, though he is using her former religious beliefs against her to get what he wants.
Tomorrow she is going to take care of it, and if her marriage fails, she is fine with that too, as she now realizes that they do not want what is best for HER, nor do they respect her personal integrity. As really it came down to, so what if she dies and leaves her other children motherless. It is all God's will according to her mother. And her partner just wants HIS future child.
Forcing a woman to be pregnant is slavery pure and simple and it cannot be seen any other way.
I agree too. Thanks for sharing your friend's experience, remind. We often discuss religions (or men) in the abstract, often as the best we wish them to be, but there are horror stories like this happening all around us, with men's hand in it generally hidden.
The Childbirth by Choice Trust edited and published a great book ten years ago, called NO CHOICE - Canadian Women Tell Their Stories of Illegal Abortion. I wish more people shared or read those first-person accounts of abortion back then; it could draw a lot of votes away from Canada's anti-choice caucus MPs Tell your local librarian about it! ISBN: 0-9683796-0-5
Thank you for the support. Remind
To be honest, I was beginning to wonder what sort of feminist forum this was with so many people defending such hatred of women.
Martin, I'm a little curious as to why your first response was 'uh?', as if you think I am a crazy person for my views, but now you agree?
Feather Sky, I wasn't defending "hatred of women". I was defending journalists not being thrown in jail for "hate crimes" for writing an article like this one. I think that it's over-the-top to throw writers in jail for profiling people in society with differing views on abortion, especially since they gave lots of space for the pro-choice point of view.
Feather Sky, recently I was in an unpleasant debate with another poster about the appropriateness of employing comparisons to the enslavement of African People. I indicated that I thought it was insensitive to people of African descent as it minimized the historical scope of four hundred years of incomparable oppression. I also pointed out that the right frequently hails the history of post colonial enslavement as a liberating process, which is in itself so grotesque, I hate to see the argument brought forth in an allegorical sense. I agree that being forced to carry a fetus to term is a gross violation of human rights, but I would prefer that people leave references to antebellum enslavement to actual analysis of racism, meegwetch.Do you honestly think that if Chatelaine printed an article advocating for capturing Africans and using them as slaves, that it would not be clearly viewed as a hate crime?
Hi Feather Sky. I wrote "uh...?" because I thought you were referring to a recent post and I couldn't make sense of what I was reading. I later understood that it was a reaction to the original Chatelaine story, and I agreed with your assessment and said so. Sorry for being way too elliptical myself. (I have noticed that there are often misunderstandings here when critiques do not name the argument or the person critiqued.)
I don't want to link to it here, as I don't want to get in trouble, however there is a Cdn prolife blog linking to this thread and quoting feather sky's comments in particular. Not sure how wide their readership is, but fyi.
Oh gosh!
Makwa, I am very torn by what you say, as the reality is women have been enslaved for the last 2000 years, and we wern't legally acknowleged as having the right to self determine until just 20 short years ago. And still today, many do not believe we have the right to. That is the lense through which I view things, and it in no way diminishes or disrespects others who have also been enslaved. Moreover, slavery still exists today, shall we not call it for what it is?
I agree too. Thanks for sharing your friend's experience, remind. We often discuss religions (or men) in the abstract, often as the best we wish them to be, but there are horror stories like this happening all around us, with men's hand in it generally hidden.Frankly, I am having a hard time with it, especially given that in her circumstance, she is also currently the main bread winner for the house and has to put the children in day care while she is at work because it is "not his job to look after them", even though he only works a half a day, 2 days a week. Also, he rapes her by cohersion, 2 times a day.
Moreover, there is an update this morning, he has told her he will burn down the house, at minimum, should she go through with this and indeed leave him.
This is taking place on the back drop, of events just across the straight from her in Washington state, over the past week end where a man shot and killed his 5 children, ages 7-16, because his wife left him.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008986370_websixdead04m...
I don't want to link to it here, as I don't want to get in trouble, however there is a Cdn prolife blog linking to this thread and quoting feather sky's comments in particular. Not sure how wide their readership is, but fyi.Um so what? And why would you think we would care? Not being rude just interested in thought process here.
I thought people might care because Feather Sky's comments about censorship are being used to represent average opinion on babble - rather than someone like Michelle's comments.
Ghislaine, Feather Sky didn't discuss censorship, she talked of hate crime legislation. Why not let that anti-choice blog have its own "debate" in its own sphere? I am concerned about the intimidating effect that your references to it risk having here.
Remind, your friend appears to be in great danger. Is she in touch with her local shelter (I can help locating it if she isn't - just PM me with more info)? Does she have a safety plan and resources to follow through with it?
Thanks for the clarification, but really, I still fail to see the point.
FYI, the day I worry about anything said by fetus fetishers, about those who actually understand human rights, will be never.
Ghislaine, Feather Sky didn't discuss censorship, she talked of hate crime legislation. Why not let that anti-choice blog have its own "debate" in its own sphere? I am concerned about the intimidating effect that your references to it risk having here.Perhaps that is what she is trying to do? Won't work.
Remind, your friend appears to be in great danger. Is she in touch with her local shelter (I can help locating it if she isn't - just PM me with more info)? Does she have a safety plan and resources to follow through with it?She has resources and a safety plan, such as it is, as she will be going to my daughter's house, though frankly I am concerned that this will cause him to react against my daughter as well. However, he is a bit intimidated by my partner, so this miight temper any actions against my daughter, or his wife in my daughter's home. But of course that is dependant upon how unstable he is becoming, if he is to the point where his personal safety means nothing to him, then all bets are off. She won't go to a shelter, she would stay rather than do that. It is a very fluid situation and there will be an outcome of some sort, before nightfall I am sure.
Sadly, this is a feared nightmare for her, as her father did burn their house down when her mother said she was leaving him because he was controlling and abusive, and they had to flee for their lives with a name change even. I believe he is using this episode in her life to also control and intimidate her. The question remains is he just using it, or will/would he go through with it.
I thought people might care because Feather Sky's comments about censorship are being used to represent average opinion on babble - rather than someone like Michelle's comments.
Doesn't matter to me, personally. Anyone could take anyone's comments on babble and misrepresent the context, say that this person speaks for everyone, etc. Doesn't make it true. Doesn't mean we have to worry about it.
martin: she was, but in the context of censoring anything other than a pro-choice viewpoint.
feather sky, it is your right to hold that position - however I fully support Chatelaine's right to write what they did.
I think what this article shows is that there is still a debate out there, whether you like it or not. I believe that a woman's right to her own body is a very young and tenuous right that we must be able to articulately defend.
My own personal position has been attacked here and mischaracterized many times as anti-choice. I am going to spell it out one more time and if it is still deemed not okay for this forum, I will never discuss the subject again:
I support legal abortion for women based on the Supreme Court's correct ruling. I don't support killing fetuses that have reached the age of viability outside the womb (somewhere around 24 weeks), however a woman also cannot be forced to do anything with her body that she does not want to do or parent if she does not want to (this is true re any children she has decided to carry to term and no longer wants to parent as well). At this stage, I don't see how it as an infringement on a woman's right to her own body to remove the fetus and keep it alive - in the same way preemies are kept alive at the exact same age.
My own personal position is that a fetus is human potential. It may not be a legal person yet, but it has the potential. Women should arm themselves with all scientific information available if they are faced with a decision that men never ever have to make (well except perhaps pregnant men in the context of transexual rights). There are fingers, toes and a heartbeat that make up that potential that already has a gender. I think as pro-choicers we have to be able to acknowledge and state these undeniable scientific facts (found in any biology textbook) and outline why they are irrelevant to the right to legalized abortion and why a woman must have the right to control her own body.
Even if she won't go to a shelter at this stage, she can talk with her local shelter staff over the phone to assess the situation and take some precautions and action measures she might not have thought of. Their knowing about the situation in detail (where he hangs out, whether he has weapons) could make a lot of difference, for instance in the time delay before police shows up - many shelters have a good relationship with local police and lives are saved every day becase of this.
If the abuser knows your daughter's home location, this is not much safer and risks extending the human cost if/when the abuser makes his move.
I don't pray but my spirit is with you and her.
I cannot disagree with you that the history of European women's conditions under European forms of patriarchy (your example excludes some ten to twenty thousand years of women's history in Turtle Island and other places) incorporates some horrific and extreme elements of oppression and disempowerment. However, under some four hundred or so years of that history, European women were allowed, in limited circumstances, to own, abuse and dispose of men, women and children of African descent under genuine chattel enslavement. I suggest that to argue that such women were similarly enslaved is disengenuous at best. At worst, it is the shameless appropriation of the struggles of other peoples.Makwa, I am very torn by what you say, as the reality is women have been enslaved for the last 2000 years, and we wern't legally acknowleged as having the right to self determine until just 20 short years ago.
European women were allowed, in limited circumstances, to own, abuse and dispose of men, women and children of African descent under genuine chattel enslavement. I suggest that to argue that such women were similarly enslaved is disengenuous at best.
Well, English and American and Spanish and Portuguese women (any others?) of the ruling class.
Martin,
You are no more concerned than I, having assessed the situation since Friday. And I agree that my daughter's home is perhaps not much safer, as he does know where she lives. Hang on am actually going to pm you.
Makwa, will get back to you in a bit, about this, as I said I am torn and clearly understand your viewpoint however, I see and feel other nuances and am trying to sort it all out. But I do not want you to think I am ignoring your most valuable words.
Feather Sky, I wasn't defending "hatred of women". I was defending journalists not being thrown in jail for "hate crimes" for writing an article like this one. I think that it's over-the-top to throw writers in jail for profiling people in society with differing views on abortion, especially since they gave lots of space for the pro-choice point of view.
Just so that I understand your position,
Are you saying that it is alright to give a platform to hate speech, as long as you give an equal platform to the opposing side?
So, for instance, shall we give a platform to those who feel it is alright to physically abuse their wives, as long as we give an equal platform to those who argue against it?
Personally, I don't see any reason why hatred needs a voice.
There are many opinions in our society which we need to silence - such as bigotry, anti-semitism etc, so why should this be any different. Why must slavery advocates have a voice?
Feather Sky, recently I was in an unpleasant debate with another poster about the appropriateness of employing comparisons to the enslavement of African People. I indicated that I thought it was insensitive to people of African descent as it minimized the historical scope of four hundred years of incomparable oppression. I also pointed out that the right frequently hails the history of post colonial enslavement as a liberating process, which is in itself so grotesque, I hate to see the argument brought forth in an allegorical sense. I agree that being forced to carry a fetus to term is a gross violation of human rights, but I would prefer that people leave references to antebellum enslavement to actual analysis of racism, meegwetch.Do you honestly think that if Chatelaine printed an article advocating for capturing Africans and using them as slaves, that it would not be clearly viewed as a hate crime?
I understand that you mean well, and I do understand your point.
However, in order to make people understand that forced conception is slavery, it needs to be compared to slavery.
There is no disrespect given or intended to people of African ancestry by my comment, except for those that don't feel that forced conception is an abominable crime of slavery.
Hi Feather Sky. I wrote "uh...?" because I thought you were referring to a recent post and I couldn't make sense of what I was reading. I later understood that it was a reaction to the original Chatelaine story, and I agreed with your assessment and said so. Sorry for being way too elliptical myself. (I have noticed that there are often misunderstandings here when critiques do not name the argument or the person critiqued.)
Thank you for the clarification, Martin. I should try not to jump to conclusions as often.
I thought people might care because Feather Sky's comments about censorship are being used to represent average opinion on babble - rather than someone like Michelle's comments.
I am not sure what the concern is? What is it that you are implying?
I don't think that I like what you are insinuating.
Ghislaine,
I find your comments very offensive. I am sure that the feminist forum is not the place for you, and I sincerely doubt that Rabble is for you either. I am sure that you would be much more comfortable on some right wing forum more suitable for advocating the slavery of women.
In fact, a woman owns her body all of the time, not some of the time.
She is under no obligation to bring a fetus to term, at one week, three months, nine months, or even ten months.
Until the fetus exits the womb, the content within is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells actively shortening a woman's life and putting her in danger. Every woman should have the full right to control her body every time, under all conditions and circumstances.
I don't know how to contact a moderator, but I am sure that they will deal with you soon enough.
There certainly are some very enlightened posters here, which is why I find it surprising to see the conversation set so far back with women-hating opinions such as the one that you have expressed.
feather sky, in actual fact, ghislaine is not allowed into any discussions regarding woman's self determination, she however ignores this, and does so anyway, at every opportunity she can, and I should not have encouraged her, by even indicating she was in the thread, even if I wanted to say "so fucking what".
So from that perspective anything she says should be ignored.
I'm one of the moderators, and it would probably be best if you left the moderating up to us, Feather Sky. You're welcome to disagree, even in the strongest terms (I agree with your position on abortion, by the way) but you're not welcome to tell people to leave babble. You can contact a moderator by private mail, or by writing to us at michelle AT rabble DOT ca, or oldgoat AT rabble DOT ca.
Ghislaine, upon further examination of your previous post, I can see why Feather Sky took offence at what you wrote about her. It's not very nice to enter a thread where people are having a conversation and then speak about one of them as if they're not here. And what you wrote about her could be taken to be disparaging, as if there is a problem with someone associating them with babble.
There is a wide range of feminist thought on all sorts of issues. Let's be respectful of each other and learn from each other rather than disparaging each other when we find ourselves in disagreement.
I cannot disagree with you that the history of European women's conditions under European forms of patriarchy (your example excludes some ten to twenty thousand years of women's history in Turtle Island and other places) incorporates some horrific and extreme elements of oppression and disempowerment. However, under some four hundred or so years of that history, European women were allowed, in limited circumstances, to own, abuse and dispose of men, women and children of African descent under genuine chattel enslavement. I suggest that to argue that such women were similarly enslaved is disengenuous at best. At worst, it is the shameless appropriation of the struggles of other peoples.
Makwa;
You are correct, I should not have liumped all women together, perhaps. However, I would suggest by your very same point of the last 400 years, that women who are of the history of Turtle Island, have experienced the same and worse, as those of European ancestory, over the last 400 years because of European colonialism and its influences.
Now, as for your limiting it to just women of European ancestory, I would expand that to all of continental Europe, the middle east and Asia.
I would also hope that you are not trying to suggest that what a majority of the world's population of women experience(d), was/is not "genuine" chattal enslavement? To do so would indeed obscure the facts that millions of women were murdered in the witch hunts, and that millions upon millions have indeed been actual chattal possessions from 400-2000 years and enduring all that that implies. And indeed, it would negate the real experiences of women who suffer(ed) very real enslavement, there is no appropriation of the struggles of others, when one is struggling from chattal enslavement, oneself. It is/was not just not oppression and disempowerment, it is/was chattal ownership and all it implies.
IMV, at present, slavery is slavery, and feel that no one has a right to expropriate it for just one segment who have been enslaved too. To do so minimizes the very real experiences of others, who were enslaved historically and who indeed are today.
The portion of the women, you indicate as being able to own and abuse and dispose of those of African descent, were also able to oppress and dispose of women and children not of their of own class. However, they are not even close to being a significant enough % to warrant consideration of a notion that women were not in the majority chattal possessions, even women within inherited wealth families were chattals and disposed of as such. Are you taking privilege of today and applying it to earlier day women? This cannot be done, women were not even considered to be human until 1927, and were absolute chattals, and how this has impacted women still plays out today, and minmizing it concerns me greatly.
Having said that, I do understand the broader points of your premise, but I am not sure you understand that most women were indeed genuine chattals, and some still are to some extent today. Then of course there is the very real and actual enslavement of women, and in some cases men, going on today around the world.
Michelle, please do consider the fact you yourself have banned ghislaine from entering into any of these types of conversations. And I apologize for responding to her.
... that millions of women were murdered in the witch hunts ...
remind, that is revisionist bunk. The actual numbers are under 100, 000 over the course of more than two hundred years.
Feather Sky, you don't have to agree with Ghislaine, but she has as much right to her opinion as you do to yours. She did point out:
...outline why they are irrelevant to the right to legalized abortion and why a woman must have the right to control her own body.
It helps no-one to alienate people who are, for the most part ON YOUR SIDE.
ETA: What Makwa said. Apples and oranges.
Well, timebandit we will have to agree to disagree on the numbers, and I am not getting into a debate with you about it.
... that millions of women were murdered in the witch hunts ...
remind, that is revisionist bunk. The actual numbers are under 100, 000 over the course of more than two hundred years.
Feather Sky, you don't have to agree with Ghislaine, but she has as much right to her opinion as you do to yours. She did point out:
...outline why they are irrelevant to the right to legalized abortion and why a woman must have the right to control her own body.It helps no-one to alienate people who are, for the most part ON YOUR SIDE.
ETA: What Makwa said. Apples and oranges.
People who are anti-choice are not on my side, no matter how many disclaimers that they add.
Everyone has the right to an opinion. Voicing it on the Internet, or in a publication is something else entirely.
Some opinions are not fit to print in any form. I happen to believe advocating that women should be returned to slavery is one such opinion.
Well, timebandit we will have to agree to disagree on the numbers, and I am not getting into a debate with you about it.
I can live with that. I understand how difficult debate can be without any actual evidence.
OFFS! Who in fact is revising or at least buying into the revision?
ETA: and yet you presume to lecture feather sky about alienating potential allies, whom I agree with her at not allies at all, astounding hypocrisy you exhibit.
In fact, a woman owns her body all of the time, not some of the time.
She is under no obligation to bring a fetus to term, at one week, three months, nine months, or even ten months.
Until the fetus exits the womb, the content within is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells actively shortening a woman's life and putting her in danger. Every woman should have the full right to control her body every time, under all conditions and circumstances.
feather sky, where did I write that a woman does not own her body at all times or that she is under an obligation to bring a fetus to term or to 9 or 10 months? I never once wrote that a woman should not have full control of her own body at all times.
Abortions at or past the age of viability outside the womb are a rare situation, as most abortions occur earlier on - but it also relates to the issue of access as well. But, I think we need to talk about it because it is these "grey" areas that can threaten the very recent right to legal ownership and control of our own bodies.
Michelle, I find anti-free speech views offensive - but I should have addressed this directly with feather sky.
Ghislaine: "...At this stage, I don't see how it as an infringement on a woman's right to her own body to remove the fetus and keep it alive - in the same way preemies are kept alive at the exact same age...."
I find this very sad.
Again OFFS!
OFFS! Who in fact is revising or at least buying into the revision?
ETA: and yet you presume to lecture feather sky about alienating potential allies, whom I agree with her at not allies at all, astounding hypocrisy you exhibit.
Okay, let's start with this page:
http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html
You're likely getting your numbers from the 9 million claimed by Mary Daly in her book "Gyn/Ecology", and who also coined the term "burning times". What you may not know, remind, is that her numbers have been discredited for some time. It is one of the more popular examples of revisionist "herstory".
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/10/did-european-witch-hunting-kill-9.html
If you've got some current, reliable information that contradicts this, remind, by all means post it. Although I seriously doubt that you will find any such thing.
Enough with the off topic.
Personally, I don't think Ghislaine sounds like she is anti-choice, just honest about some of the conflicts that some women have in thinking about all of the different permutations and implications of absolute choice, and it's valid to talk about those. Take Feather Sky's tack and you will spend all your time preaching to the choir.
I also don't think I've said anything presumptuous to Feather Sky at all, nor have I delivered a lecture. I've disagreed, to some extent. I'm allowed to do that. No presumption necessary.
ETA: I have shown no hypocrisy. I am absolutely consistent and challenge you to show up any inconsistency in my position that you can find.
