Skip to main content

Garance Franke-Ruta has a terrific article in the Atlantic Monthly titled Richard Mourdock, Mitt Romney and the GOP Defense of Coerced Mating where she makes the point that the reason the discussion about rape and abortion is so salient in this election cycle is because it defines whether people believe women can be full and equal members of the American society.  She explains that in many patriarchial societies, women are considered the property of men as well as victims of coerced sexual attacks, through war where women were raped as a tactic of warfare, through punishment of uppitiness or through men wanting to show women who's in charge.

In America, we object to and do not permit any of these approaches, because of what they violate: the right to be free from harm, the right of bodily integrity, the right to sexual autonomy, and, most importantly, the right of a woman to belong to herself and not be able to be claimed as property by a masculine act against her, or by anyone, ever.

Men fought against those who advocated women's rights for close to 500 years in the West by calling them and their vision of female access to these rights -- along with the right to be educated, critically, and to have the same suffrage and property rights as men -- a violation of nature, or even, as one late-19th century American jurist described the idea of a woman lawyer, a "treason against nature." And the critics were not entirely wrong. Women's rights are unnatural, if you think about it -- our natural lot the world over through most of documented human history has been subjection without autonomy or freedom. Coercive sexuality and rape are part of that system of subjection, and sexual coercion occurs in nonhuman primate populations, as well, where -- depending on the species -- it may well persist because it is an effective male reproductive strategy.

But what is natural and what is good and just are not the same. America itself is a rejection of nature, if you believe what many have argued, that the natural form of human social organization is the unjust rule of the few over the many, as the natural aristocracy of talent gives way to rule by heirs. America's genius has lain in moving away from the rule and exploitation of the many by the few toward a more equitable mode of social organization in the name of justice and equality and universal rights.

...The idea that coerced reproduction is God's will is of a piece with the belief that the subjection of women is God's will. The two ideas are inextricably intertwined historically, and the former is stubbornly resilient relic of the latter. To unpack this a bit more: According to Mourdock's thinking, a man who forces a woman to have sex with him against her will is a criminal, but a man who forces a woman to bear his child through forced sex should be permitted to do so, because abortion is murder and every conceived child is a gift from God.

Do we want to live in a country where any man at any time can decide he wants to bear children with any woman and she has no right to stop that from happening if he can overpower her by force? If we do -- and that's the society Mourdock is advocating -- then we have immediately left the society the feminists constructed and re-entered one where coerced mating is rewarded reproductively.

Rape is about controlling women as this piece by John Scalzi so succinctly puts it.  (h/t Kascade Kat) To see how well it works, listen to the harrowing second story from the Moth Radio Hour where a woman tells the story of her rape and the years it took her to come to terms with it.

Beyond the controversy over rape and abortion is the other attack on the rights of women to control their bodies. Don't forget that Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood and destroy the ability for millions of women to get reliable contraception and health care. Another must read piece written by Jill Lahore in The New Yorker, Birthright: What's Next for Planned Parenthood, reviews the hard struggle for women to get the rights over their own reproductive lives starting with the work by Margaret Sanger to make sure even poor women could control their own reproductive destiny.

[Margaret] Sanger and her sister came from a family of eleven children, one of whom Sanger helped deliver when she was eight years old. When Sanger began nursing poor immigrant women living in tenements on New York's Lower East Side, she found that they were desperate for information about how to avoid pregnancy. These "doomed women implored me to reveal the 'secret' rich people had," Sanger wrote in her autobiography.

But according to social norms during that time, if women have sex, they must always be in fear of getting pregnant.

At Sanger's trial, during which the judge waved a cervical cap from the bench, Sanger hoped to argue that the law preventing the distribution of contraception was unconstitutional: exposing women, against their will, to the danger of dying in childbirth violated a woman's right to life. But the judge ruled that no woman had "the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception." In other words, if a woman wasn't willing to die in childbirth, she shouldn't have sex.

If Republicans truly wanted to reduce abortions, they would support ObamaCare because studies show that when women have safe, reliable birth control, there are very few abortions.  Women who have control of their reproductive future have control over their lives and this issue is both a social and an economic issue for women and their families.

Originally posted to Mary on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM PDT.

Also republished by Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    "The less satisfaction we derive from being ourselves, the greater is our desire to be like others." - Eric Hoffer

    by Mary on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:23:29 PM PDT

  •  The fight against abortion rights coupled with the (8+ / 0-)

    war on contraception is further evidence that the former is not really about preventing abortion. It is clearly, sadly, more and more obviously, about control. Rather, taking it away from women. It's appalling that they aren't even trying to temporally separate the two anymore and people are still buying/selling the drivel.

    "You do not have to be good...You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves." -Mary Oliver

    by hwy70scientist on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:53:20 PM PDT

  •  On top of this (8+ / 0-)

    a female in Pennsylvania introduced a bill that would not allow a woman to get additional food stamps if she got pregnant / had a child while she was using food stamps.

    So not only do they want to prevent women from getting birth control, and prevent them from having an abortion, they will not assist a poor woman to feed the child they are forcing her to give birth to.

    In other words, a woman is just not allowed to have sex if she is poor.  This would absolutely work out well for a married woman.  I am sure her husband would understand.

    The bill did allow for the exception that if a woman could prove she was raped, she would be allowed to have additional food stamps for that child.

    If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her food stamp benefits aren’t slashed, but  only if she can provide proof  that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police. . .The language of the bill goes on to note that a sexual assault victim applying for an exemption will be required to sign a statement affirming she understands that “false reports to law enforcement authorities are punishable by law,” and stipulates that Pennsylvania will report any “evidence of false statements or fraud” to the correct department, all the way up to the Attorney General’s office.
    It is outrageous (to me) that a woman would introduce this legislation.  I just cannot imagine how hateful if not down right evil you have to be to think this is a good idea.

    There is some good news.  The bill was withdrawn because of the outrage it generated (people were really angry about a raped woman having to prove the rape and name the attacker).  

    Swanger told The Daily Beast she was inundated with calls about the bill so she decided to withdraw it. Her hope had been to model the bill after a successful New Jersey law that limits welfare funds to families as they have more children.

    Swanger also said she was surprised by the criticism the rape exemption received, defending it as protection for rape victims.

    I am beginning to think the Mayans were correct, and the world is going to go through a dramatic change toward the end of 2012.  I hope it includes these wingnuts waking up and treating the rest of humanity with some degree of compassion.

    If not, I just think the women in this country are not going to take too much more of this.

  •  There you go again, Mary, talking about (4+ / 0-)

    naughty stuff.  You're "right" to vote and stuff.  Look, it's simple.  When a woman says "hello" she right then and there gives up any perceived "rights" she thought she had to her own body.  The man she said "hello" to now has every right to do as he pleases with that woman.  Simple as that.  See, that's why there's no such thing as rape.  Repub women know that when Jack says, "let's get it on!" he's not asking.  He's telling.  Rape is just some quaint made up Librul notion.  Got it?
    We didn't think so.  But, you will!  You will!
    – Paul Ryan, Mittens, and the whole TeaPublicon caucus.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site