Because people don’t get pregnant, women get pregnant
Laurie Penny says a thing at the New Statesman.
Title and subhead:
If men got pregnant, abortion would be legal everywhere
The concept of women deciding when, whether and how to have children, is still a threat to the status quo.
In other words, all together now: if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
Laurie Penny cites the murders at Planned Parenthood and a Belfast judge’s ruling that “abortion might just be permissible in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality” and suggests that there’s a pattern.
The concept of women having actual goddamned agency over their lives and bodies, the idea that we might get to decide when, whether and how to have children, is still a threat to the status quo. We grudgingly allow women to make decisions related to sex and reproduction as long as they feel an appropriate degree of guilt, and hoard that guilt away in private. Have an abortion? You’d better be sorry about it for the rest of your life. Get pregnant without a partner? Be prepared to spend 18 years explaining yourself. Leave paid work to have a child? You’re lazy, spoiled and frivolous. Carry on working after your kids are born? You’re cold, selfish. Get sterilised? You’re an unfeeling, unnatural monster. Whoever you are, if you have a uterus and dare to make a decision about what comes out of it, shame on you. Shame is the overarching theme here, shame and scorn for anyone with the temerity to behave as if their own humanity is important.
Right. And why is that? Because women, as a class, are subordinated, treated as inferior, denied rights, considered not fully human. Why is that? Partly because they’re the ones who have the babies. It’s a loop.
I am sick of explaining to misogynists that women are people whose choices and autonomy matter. Instead, let’s go back to considering the seahorse. Consider how different the world would be if the people with the capacity to bear children were the people society already considered fully human. Consider what would happen if men got pregnant.
If men got pregnant, abortion would be available free of charge and without restriction in every town and city on earth. No man would be expected to justify his decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It would be enough for him to say, “I don’t want to have this baby.”
And so on, with conditional example after conditional example. If men got pregnant, so many things would be so different.
In point of fact, some men do get pregnant. Transsexual men have borne children, but their experience is not part of the popular understanding of reproductive rights – because people don’t get pregnant, women get pregnant, and when you get down to it, women aren’t really people. The structure of modern misogyny is still grounded on the fear that women might one day regain control of the means of reproduction and actually get to make their own decisions about the future of the human race- but you cannot force a person to give birth against their will and consider them fully human.
If men got pregnant, we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we still are shows how far we’ve got to go before equality becomes reality.
Will she be accused? Will she get away with it? News at 11.
Oh, my! She’s said that something that is only true for a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population is not what defines the average person’s definition of events. Evil excluder.
Just imagine a world where it was so. Would women still be Other and lesser, but with some other reason attached?
Over the last few decades, public opinion polls have shown men to be more “pro-choice” than women.
Do you accept that factoid,* and, if so, how should it be explained?
* http://spectator.org/blog/30346/do-men-and-women-view-abortion-differently
This is the best reference I could find at the moment. It does say that men and women have very similar views, and that the big differences in views correlate with other things…
LP makes more than a few good points there, but I’ve never been taken by the argument that abortion would be a given if men gave birth. This assumes that male members of the political class are happy to give rights to the men they rule, when history shows that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to dole out basic entitlements.
Yet again, it seems, the ability to have a discussion of women and women’s rights – and even aspirations to having any rights – is being suppressed in the name of a different (and thus worthier*) oppressed group.
(*All oppressed groups/minorities are worthier than women, that’s been the whole point; currently, and throughout history.)
What are the figures? Women are over 50% of the adult population. A tiny, tiny number of people – what am I saying?! Women are people? Silly me†… those who are/have ever been treated as women are, in fact, trans men. An even tinier number of those who have ever been treated as women are trans men actually living as/presenting as men 100% of the time; and so few of those have ever become pregnant that they make international news when they do. How many have wanted an abortion? Anyone?
(†Sarcasm, for those who have difficulty recognising it. Or those who pretend they do, in order to further an agenda.)
The argument that women’s reproductive services should be re-named because the use of the word ‘woman’ is oppressive to trans men is a smoke-screen to cover up the real reason for erasing the words ‘woman’ and ‘women’ from any discussion of rights for women: making it even harder for women to attain or retain those rights.
I’m sick of people appropriating my existence to further oppress half of humanity.
Women get pregnant. Women need access to reproductive services specifically tailored to pregnant women. When I was pregnant, it would not have mattered one iota if I’d been bearded at the time. I needed exactly the same care as a cis woman, so as a trans man I stand with those who are pointing out the hypocrisy, not those who think that my existence is a club with which to beat uppity women.
“…people don’t get pregnant, women get pregnant, and when you get down to it, women aren’t really people -…”
This. Just this.
This is why I resist the “people with uteruses” terminology. Because it explicitly erases the experiences of a political class whose reproductive labor is subject to control by a ruling class. Nothing to do with hating trans folk. We have fought so long to have the concepts and the language to express this type of oppression. Giving them up is not an option.
Anon1152@3:
Too bad those men aren’t standing in our chambers of government and heading our religious organisations, hey? Because the ones we’ve got there sure as hell don’t even support contraception, let alone abortion.
learie:
I’m guessing you’re American…
But…
My point (if I had one) wasn’t that…
Wait…
What do you think my point was?
Old stats data is old; if you want to talk about statistics on pro-choice vs pro-birth, at least have the courtesy to use current information.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx
That is some powerful writing.
fruitbatta:
I assume that you comment was directed at me.
The question I asked (well, the first part of the question) was if Ophelia Benson (or anyone) accepted the factoid.
You didn’t say whether or not you accepted the factoid. You said that I was being discourteous for not using the most current information.
I’m not sure why it’s “discourteous” to not use the very latest data after trying to ask a question about polling done over the previous few decades. Also not sure why only American public opinion should count.
But I digress.
Thank you for the link. The article does talk about the difference between the opinions of men and women (in the USA). The graph showing the different male/female levels of support for pro-choice/pro-life only goes back to 2001, and, I must admit, that was about the time I was in a class and the professor said that, historically, men tended to be more pro-choice than women. And the link says that there wasn’t much of a gender gap between 2001-2011. I’m feeling old right now.
I downloaded the pdf (at the end of the article) with more details about the data/methodology but I’m not seeing anything yet about the differences of opinion (men vs women).
The link doesn’t give the details I’d like to know… It says that they didn’t define pro-choice and pro-life for respondents… which is a bit problematic, I think. To be honest, I’m not sure how helpful these categories are. Are you in favour of choice? (Of course). Are you in favour of life? (You bet).
Even if we just look at the data in the link you provided, there are significant numbers of men and women on both sides of the abortion issue. How do we explain the “pro-life” women?
It’s at times like this that I miss being a university student with access to the library’s resources…