The entire point of these diaries has been that is not 'the abortion issue' it's about autonomy. It is the ability for each of us to continue accessing that which is vitally necessary to maintaining our autonomy- abortion. The two are tied closely; one is the underlying value, the other, an action.
you say-
"for you to come in here and throw words like "mystic cunt" at his post"
this is what I actually said-
"Deep inside your mythic cunt"
MYTHIC, not MYSTIC. My point is simple- he has no cunt, or female sex organs. If it's just the word cunt" people are choking on, I already explained my use of the term in the first diary comments.
Forgive my presupposition, but I'm going to guess for one moment that what you are not upset by is not my term "mythic cunt" but the full context in which it was used.
" i'll just say my place and leave you to simmer in your anger"
What is missed here, again, is that these were not angry posts. They were born of a certain understanding of where we stood, and that as I said in the first diary- places, and people who everyone keep calling 'allies' are really doing things that deeply harm.
They deeply harm ongoing access to abortion. They harm other women.
In the first diary, I spoke of how language was being used to write women, abortion, autonomy, etc out of existence, and how there were many outright calling for a retreat from abortion altogether. Others give a certain support to it, but through their actions continue to create a climate in which access to abortion, and women themselves are being decimated.
I asked in one of my follow ups yesterday how one can speak to support of abortion, yet also deeply dislike it. My answer was simple- the poster themselves, as they had asked, needed to figure out for themselves whether that meant they were my ally or not- I wasn't going to give some simple pat answer.
When I see text like what JAV wrote this morning-
"Sure she has to carry the child to term, but does the father have any rights? After all, it is his child as well."
Unfortunately, that's not just a matter between the two of you making a personal decision. That's a matter of a political call for "rights" of men over the personal sovereignty of pregnant women.
My response was 'with allies like these...'
I said his post did a fine job of showing exactly what my first diary pointed out- that language was harming us. That if "rights" like this do come to pass, it will be over the live bodies of other women.
Should those 'fathers' rights' extend to rapists and men who commit incest? I sure as hell hope not. But that's exactly what open ended calls for such things can mean.
To say
"it is his child as well"
(and no, it's not a child) spells doom for some women. That deserves nothing less than comment- it deserves outrage.
This may be his personal interpretation and language (which as I've said before, sits in the context of 30 years of language being intentionally monkeyed with to the point that many people can't think outside those harmful memes.)
If that's the internal landscape of his head- fine. Just don't go putting in a call for political action- "rights of the father" in the middle of all that- and that's what I saw this morning.
If you feel it's 'over the line' to post when I see a call to political action that runs straight over my body- then I guess we're at an impasse.
"i'm so sorry to read phrases like "I'm ETERNALLY grateful you're not the man I go to bed with from time to time" directed at the man i go to bed with every night."
Well, you know what? It's pretty insulting to read-
"men think of nothing but sex"
"We are the ones who think of nothing else but sex"
"the vast majority of the time we are the ones who worked so hard to get them in bed"
"We men seem to forget a lot of things when we get horny."
-universalized out to all men. Worst of all perhaps is the inherent sexism in trying to put these words in the mouths of all men-
"After all, she was just a warm body, a receptacle, and any woman would have done."
(Unless of course he was speaking for himself and his own perspective on women.)
He's welcome to speak to his own experience, but to universalize it out to all men is just preposterous- and insulting. It insults my grandfather, my father, my brother, my lover, my friends, hell, the waiter at the restaurant tonight.
Perhaps JAV thinks of nothing but sex, but it's insulting to men to be lumped in with his personal experience.
It's really sad to see exactly that kind of stereotyping sexism directed at anyone, male or female.
So I guess you're welcome to be mad at me if you want for being a woman calling a man on his sexism directed against other men. If it makes you feel better? Yeah- guilty as charged.
I saw his later 'sorry I painted with the broad brush' comment. Unfortunately, he then goes on to negate that very apology-
"But in the end I give us little love, because from my own experiences the good guys are the minority. Let me say that again, from my own experiences."
I still think it's really important to look at the comments and understand just how deep that ran- maybe that's a really painful learning experience. It's not just men who take grave offense to this kind of sexism. He's STILL doing it.
Whether or not your husband is fantastic, loving, caring etc in person really isn't the point. The point is, he's making calls for specific political programs and using language that tramples OTHER women's access to abortion. He's in a political forum making specific calls to action, and I guess I just think those are valid things to be discussed and disagreed with- strongly as a matter of fact.
In case you missed those calls to action, I'll bring them back out here-
"The sad reality is that this is a women's issue because men refuse to step up and take responsibility for their actions. She didn't get pregnant on her own, and she shouldn't have to deal with the ramifications alone. "
This demands other men step into that process- again it sets out autonomy aside. Instead of ASKING the woman if she wants him there, he (to paraphrase) 'should' be there. I find that particular phrasing and how other men may act on that problematic.
The call to answer this (assumedly with resultant actions) was particularly disturbing, as it dovetails strongly with the ALREADY EXISTING wingnut end of the men's rights movement (the only men's movement with political power currently) and its political agenda, which has been detrimental to women repeatedly-
"does the man have any say in what happens? What if the pregnancy is an accident, but the man wants to keep the child if the woman doesn't? Sure she has to carry the child to term, but does the father have any rights? After all, it is his child as well.
Unfortunately this too, leads to genuine questions about implementation-
"Birth is the only way into this world. There is no other way to get here. Why don't we celebrate it more?"
With the political realities we now face, what would 'celebrating birth more' mean? What does that mean to those in pregnancy who do not give birth, and what does it mean to those women who never give birth? What does it mean to adoption? All of these are deeply entwined with the preexisting political and cultural realities of where we sit.
"Is it because there are too many people around and now we take it for granted?"
Is this about population?
"...yet the whole discussion seems twisted. Many women see having a child as an impediment to having a career. How fucked up are we that a woman has to choose between work and children? What, only men can work and only women can stay home?"
Well yes, there are realities behind women's decisions- such as how many hours there are in a day, or WHEN they want to have children in relation to the rest of their lives. That is not a clear indicator of something being "fucked up" that is a clear indicator of women's autonomous decision making. These decisions must not be made in some kind of top down manner- rather each woman gets to decide for herself.
That said, monetary and time realities can really suck- nonetheless- it's her decision.
He goes on to say-
"working harder to prevent unwanted pregnancies and helping those with children who need help?"
My first diary dealt extensively with how 'unplanned pregnancies" hides the women in there, and how a societal demand to 'prevent unwanted pregnancies' only ends up scapegoating and marginalizing the women who have them.
As for "women with children who need help", that's so open ended I wouldn't know where to begin.
"Women should not have to "fear" getting pregnant. This is a fucking travesty,"
Even the most wanted pregnancy in the world will entail fear. Why? Simple- because pregnancy and birth carry with it both pain and risk of death. We don't live in a perfect world, and we won't anytime soon.
This however, is the most comprehensive change he calls for-
"until we change our whole image of pregnancy, life and societal roles, we will never find answers to all the questions I have put here."
Well, then that concerns me- as the primary 'changes of images of pregnancy' you've put forward are a celebration of birth, and trying to get women to cease fearing pregnancy- both of which in this political context leave me with more questions than I have answers.
But most of all? I don't feel it's any man's role to say we need to redefine pregnancy and birth. Why? Because pregnancy and birth are women's experiences. And no amount of "we were pregnant" changes that simple biological fact.
As he wraps up he again expresses his feelings in the first person narrative, equating the abortion his wife experienced to feelings of failure-
"I still feel like I failed her, myself, and our unborn child."
Maybe he from the heart genuinely feels it was an 'unborn child' but that is simply a biologic impossibility and to continually use these terms which originated with those trying to deny abortion to women negates women now- placing the focus on the potential rather than the real.
Anna, I glad you were able to make your own decision about your own abortion. That is exactly what I've advocated from the start. If you wanted him there beside you- then I'm very glad he was there beside you.
My point is he doesn't get to decide to 'be beside you' unless you wanted him there. That's the problem with the "father's rights" argument.
But here's my problem with what Anna wrote, you say-
"he did what every real man should do in that situation"
Well, no.
REAL MEN- whatever the hell that means (and not in the promise keeper sense) first of all is a fiction to tell men what someone thinks they ought to do- so much for men's autonomy as well.
If the woman doesn't want him there, men should respect that. If she wants him out of her life he should go. If she needs time to get her thoughts together he should respect that.
There is no ONE solution to what any MYTHIC "real man" should do. There are only the circumstances of each couple, and what they each autonomously want.
I draw the line where a man's autonomy and a woman's on this matter conflict though, as it's her body his will would run over.
In his update he says-
"Then she said, "I love you too, I'm pregnant." What it must have been like for her, wondering for that moment what kind of man I would turn out to be, if I would stay or go."
A woman saying she's pregnant is just not a test of your (or any man's) manhood, or 'what kind of man' you turn out to be.
He's seeing it as a test about him- but 'honey I'm pregnant' just isn't a question. It's a fact. A fact that then leads to actions- even if that action is to maintain the pregnancy.
"in the end what mattered was that we had to make a decision".
No, this is sequential. It's not 'we make a decision', she makes a decision, he may give input if that's what she wants, thereafter he either respect it or doesn't. And yes, he may make his own separate decision to bolt, stay, whatever. But the decision about the pregnancy is in an autonomy respecting relationship ultimately hers- it's her body.
"We were going to do this together."
No, she was going to have an abortion; he was going to wait in a waiting room. Unless he's found some way to insert a canula up his cervix, trust me, he ain't going through this together- simple fact.
'Emotionally together' is very different than physically experiencing the same thing. Conflating the two does not help.
As I said yesterday in the threads, men are entitled to feel whatever they do. Their words, especially when they universalize, are sexist (to either sex), and when they are used to hide or devalue others particularly in a political forum may damage. And calls to political action need to be carefully examined.
Anna, of course I 'don't know shit' about either of you. You don't know shit about me either- tis the nature of this thing. Clearly you don't know as I'm not angry, this isn't animosity- you may not believe that, but whatever.
None of this is some 'hateful screed'.
Of course, you're going to take all of this however you both do. That's not anything I can control, nor would I want to.
But you both deserved at least this diary, to point by point take you through what my concerns were, and where that diary came from. I give you my time and my words, that's all I can.
That's pretty much what I have to say on the matter.
