“Pro-Life” Myth No. 3.5: Pro-Choicers hate babies, so they should…have more of them? January 25, 2009

This thought occurred to me during the writing of my last post in this series, about the “pro-life” myth that people who are in favor of reproductive choice hate babies. As I (hopefully) demonstrated in that post, a lot of the the time, someone’s reason for getting an abortion is the exact opposite: they care a great deal about children, both preexisting and potential, so having an abortion when unable to care for (another) one is an expression of that respect and love. I stand by those statements, but wonder: why is it that that argument gets under people’s skin so easily?

“Pro-Life” Myth No. 3: Pro-choicers hate babies!

This is a persistent one. Besides being chanted by every Planned Parenthood protester with a fetus picture, it got a lot of mileage during the latest presidential campaign. Basically, at a campaign event in March of last year, Obama said the following scandalous statement:

“I’ve got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I’m going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

I dislike his equating “values and morals” with abstinence and lack thereof with sex, but I do like that he’s encouraging contraceptive use (this speech was not actually about abortion at all). He also recognizes, as most reasonable people do, that being pregnant when one does not wish to be is distinctly unpleasant, and when this unpleasantness is the result of sex, a pregnancy (particularly a pregnancy that one is unable to get rid of) can reasonably be called “a punishment” for said sex.

Well. I’m sure you can guess how that radical sentiment worked out.

“Pro-Life” Myth No. 1: You can just give it up for adoption! Problem solved! January 8, 2009

Time for a series on wingnut myths about reproductive rights! Yay!

Every time someone says, “Oh, I don’t think you should be allowed to have an abortion. But just give it up for adoption! It’s just as good for you, and better for your baby!”, I want to punch a hole in the wall. Part of it is the blithe nature in which it’s said, exacerbating the flagrant disregard of what the mother might think is best for her or her baby; part of it is the moralistic, holier-than-thou tone – ironic, in my opinion, because said tone is coming from someone who has made it their business to guilt/force women into bearing unwanted children, and still manages to feel proud and self-satisfied.

My quarrel is not with adoption, per se. My quarrel is with these “pro-lifers” (you know what? I can’t handle putting parentheses around the term each time I use it, and don’t want to get into what the best alternate term would be, so just assume the quotes are there from here on out) who frantically trot out ADOPTION as the best (and only moral) choice for pregnant women who aren’t ready to have a child. Adoption can be a wonderful thing for everyone involved, but to assert that it’s the best choice in all cases, or for all people, is a dramatic misrepresentation of the facts, and insulting to women who choose to have an abortion rather than give their babies up.

Money – it’s a gas. Don’t give me that do goody-good bullshit. January 7, 2009

Today’s post will be on (drumroll please)…the wage gap! Woohoo!

First, a couple of YouTube videos to get you in the mood. The first (via Feministe), by the Get Out of the Way of Fair Pay Campaign, featuring Batgirl along with her more famous counterparts, Batman and Robin.

The second is an ad (via Feministing) – subtitled in Dutch, so probably distributed in Belgium or the Netherlands. Original actors seem to be speaking with non-American accents, though, so I would imagine it’s from the UK.

The thing about the wage gap is that it persists, to this day, when feminism is supposedly no longer needed and men and women are completely equal and everybody farts rainbows.