the woman's role

I was just talking to my friend Sonia Oram, the highly talented and compassionate brain behind qwear.  (Qwear is an inclusive queer style blog, loaded not only with tips about dressing to express your gender identity but also empowering messages about being yourself, resources for self-harm, and other things.  Check it out!)

Anyway, it was one of those conversations that made me go

We were talking about obscure comments some Missouri GOP Senate hopeful made, something along the lines of "legitimate rape" and "doctors" and women's bodies producing scientific chemicals that block rape sperm if the rape was truly forcible enough to satisfy the far-right's hopelessly narrow definition of rape.

We speculated, what if men were the ones who got pregnant and had to make the choice about getting abortions?

But, of course, that world is impossible to conceive because it turns this world on its head.  We realized that, at the crux of every anti-woman inequality, is the notion that assumes that a woman's primary role is to maximize her sexual and reproductive fitness.

Or, as we put it, almost EVERY inequality stemming from patriarchy is a direct function of women being able to have babies.

I know that this is a very fundamental idea, and probably the first thing some of you learned in Women's Studies 101.  I've heard this concept expressed in other ways, always yoked to other ideas.  But it really lies at the heart of every major feminist debate.

Size acceptance: (Duh.) Pitting women in competition against each other under the pretense of "winning in order to be the healthiest/most desirable".  Like any good free market competition, to produce the highest number of women that fit the narrow beauty ideal.

The wage gap: because, more than a gap between women and men, it is a gap between mothers and non-mothers.  Fun fact, did you know that over 178 countries, which does not include the US, have guaranteed paid maternity leave for new mothers, 50 offering paid leave for new fathers?

Abortion: the most contentious of these debates.  Todd Akin, along with others (although they do not constitute the GOP majority) hold the convenient belief that we don't even need to talk about abortion in cases of rape because it's not even a possibility.   (BLARGH DO THEY SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT!?!?!  whew, ok, we have already beaten this to death.  That was cathartic.  Moving on.)

I will put aside statistics of the clear impact that unwanted births have on national crime rate and high rates of maternal morbidity, and the fact that low-income pregnant women are disproportionately affected by anti-abortion legislation, since wealthier women can (and do!) pay more money, take more time off, and travel further distances to meet that need elsewhere.  I believe the most baffling aspect of the debate are the politicians that trust women to make this big choice for themselves in this one, highly emotional instance, but do not trust them to make that big choice for themselves in other instances besides rape, when they are of sounder mind and judgement.

There is no room for them to accept a woman violating the terms of her pregnancy.

You can read my friend AJC's blog post about it here.

UPDATE: AJC has a fantastic take on Akin's comments.  Do yourself a favor and read her post!  You can find it here.