I now take a break from reflecting on the cuteness of Bert to reflect on one example of what promises to blossom into a relentless buttload, albeit an ultimately ineffective one, of anti-John Roberts propaganda. I allude to a bit of reportage at the Boston Globe illuminating the political views of Roberts’ wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts.
Guess what! Roberts, who suffers from a raging case of Catholicism, is affiliated with a little infestation of goody-goodies they like to call Feminists For Life. Also known as “Nuke The Hairy Harlots For Jesus,†it’s one of those organizations espousing the cognitively dissonant position that “women should be protected from abortion.†That’s right! Anti-abortion feminists! How oxy is that moron?
I allude to Feminists For Life’s views as cognitively dissonant because my cognitizer is dissonating at lightning speed the notion that advocating the criminalization of abortion–that is, promoting public policy requiring women to suffer existence as a class of enslaved sexbot incubators–can be interpreted as a) “protection†from anything, or b) even remotely feminist.
The group also hearts feeding tubes in its spare time. Like you didn’t see that one coming.
But anyway, check out the fucked-up case cited by the Boston Globe, from the festering center of which a Roberts-authored affidavit unfurls its crumulent tentacles: in 1998 a Kentucky school district, luxuriating in the endlessly entertaining patriarchal sport of ostracizing unwed teen mothers, banishes a couple of same from the National Honor Society (that’ll put those nasty teen sluts in their place!) So that’s fucked up enough, right? But then up pops Roberts and her merry band of woman-hating feminists. In a surprise twist–because they’re feminists after all–they’re actually against the school board’s decision.
Why? Well, not because they think that pillorying teenage girls is barbaric, and certainly not because nobody talked about banning any teen fathers from the National Honor Society. No, it’s because the kind of girl who would get herself pregnant is obviously a potential murderer! The school district’s policy, Roberts wrote, would “encourage students to hide their pregnancies and not seek prenatal care . . . and instead obtain an abortion, or, worst of all, commit neonatal infanticide."
Let these girls into the National Honor Society or they will kill!
The only kind of woman whose rights Roberts is interested in protecting is the kind whose uterus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jesus, Inc. Of course, Roberts isn’t the one who’s nominated for the Supremes. But she still seems like a fucktard to me.
I love that you can make me laugh while simultaneously scaring the crap out of me. It takes some of the sting out.
Damn patriarchy (and uber-stupid FfL)!
(Your ball of fluff is still adorable BTW, thanks for inflicting the cuteness.)
I wonder when they will deploy Phase 2: removing the offspring from the care of their would-be killers (damn, I mean their mothers!) to be raised in a decent Christianistic environment.
Oh, shit. That’s right. There isn’t that sort of Phase 2, because if you’re not pre-born, you’re on your own and off their radar. Next fetus, please!
Topic shift:
How’s Bert been doing at night? How many litter-mates did he have? Where does he sleep now? Does he know that I love him? Don’t tell me you haven’t told him yet….
Do these people realize their group name is straight thugging?
Feminist 4 Life, killa. Recognize.
Well, Larkspur, the Feminists For Life, though they appear to enjoy reinforcing the notion of women as babymakers, actually aren’t as full-on nasty as some; they at least seem to give half a hang for fully-realized humans. Quoth Roberts, “the group’s focus is to eliminate, through practical solutions, the root causes of driving girls and women to abortion,” which appear to inlcude “pressing colleges to provide affordable housing and healthcare for new parents, fighting family caps in welfare reform, working for expansion of the Violence Against Women Act, and seeking better enforcement on child support.”
But still.
Also, Bert’s doing great. He has a bladder the size of a pea, but he likes his crate, which is right next to my bed, and last night I only had to get up twice to let him out.
I’m not familiar with Ms. Roberts’ group, but it seems to be related to that crew from the 60s: “Negroes For Gettin’ Chewed On By Police Dogs.”
BTW, just got back into town. Congratulations on the dog, no doubt named for Bert Parks.
Far be it from me to differ from Twisty, but from what I’ve seen of “Feminists for Life,” their mission seems to me at least intellectually consistent: rather than concentrate on criminalizing abortion (they’ve apparently moved away from legislative advocacy), they’re working on foregrounding feminist issues that address the root problems of *why* women need abortions–economic vulnerability, social stigmas against motherhood, and so on. While I don’t think that, even in the perfect feminist utopia, no one would need abortions, I have to admit that I do admire an anti-abortion organization that “gets” that abortion is a feminist issue, not only b/c of the bottom-line position that it is necessary, but because there are lots of cases where, in a better world, it wouldn’t be. And I don’t know that I entirely object to a sincerely-held position that life is sacred and that abortion, for that reason, is regrettable; I don’t agree that abortion is regrettable, but I can respect people who do, you know?
I think part of where I’m coming at this from is being a Catholic myself, and having long thought that yeah, in a religion where motherhood is absolutely central (leaving aside the many, many misogynist sins of the church), there’s a space for the argument that what’s needed is a world in which motherhood is *so* central that abortion and all the other reproductive and feminist issues would be integrated into the larger society. I do think that abortion will always be necessary (and I’m not 100% clear on whether Feminists for Life really wants to go so far as to make it illegal, or whether they’re more interested in changing social conditions to make it rare), and I’m a little wary of an organization that could play so easily into the hands of the Operation Rescue crowd. But I’m not entirely sure that the aims of a pro-woman organization that wants to create a world that’s better for women and mothers are necessarily bad, skeeved though I am by the potentially patriarchal overtones. I’d really have to know more about the organization (and Ms. Roberts’s own views) to know for sure if this is patriarchy under another guise, or a radically feminist world view.
I’m a mother of two, well educated, economically secure, white, happy, married. There is no reason for me not to have more kids under the Feminists for Life concept, except that I do not more kids… ever.
We have taken all the necessary contraceptive steps, but on the off chance that I get pregnant I will have an abortion.
I know feminists try to explain the reasons why women have abortions and highlight the social/economic structures which make it difficult to continue with a pregnancy, but we also have to face the fact that some women want to have sex, but do not want to have (more) children.
That is why a large percentage of women who have abortions are married and already have children. They know what mothering is all about and how having another child will change their lives and they would prefer that not happen.
Shutting down the patriarchy ain’t going to make me have more babies.
and, OMG your puppy is cute.
Agreed, Steph. That’s why I said my bottom line is that abortion is always gonna be necessary, and I do think that’s a huge blind spot in those “preventing abortion” arguments. Thanks.
It’s me again. I can’t stop looking at Bertie’s picture. I am powerless over cute puppy pictures.
” . . . and instead obtain an abortion, or, worst of all, commit neonatal infanticide.”
Wait a sec. If fetuses are, as the pro-lifers insist, completely human, and abortion is murder, then why would killing a newborn WORSE than having an abortion? This quote seems to draw a distinction between the two, with abortion being somewhat less serious than, well, actual murder. Seems a little tiny bit of feminism snuck into F4L rhetoric after all.
Aha! A perceptive insight, Kyra. Well done!
I agree with Steph.
Aside from being, basically, a pile of shite, Feminists for Life are ignoring the fact that some women have abortions just because they don’t want a child, not because they’re incapable of raising one for whatever reason.
Perhaps they regard possessing a womb and NOT wishing to drop brats left and right is another problem which requires fixing.