There is no larger trend of women being forced to be baby-makers

I don’t really have much more to say about the whole forcing-women-back-into-the-alley tactics of the Republican party, supported by people whose ideation of their religion includes prohibitions of abortion that are wholly unmentioned in their foundational texts. But I’m certain they’re the only parties in this world that think women exist solely for the purposes of procreation. Other instances are totally isolated.

Take, for instance, the twisted logic by which Republicans defund Planned Parenthood, ostensibly to prevent abortions, inevitably leading to more underage pregnancy when these kids cannot access contraceptives.

Take, for instance, the baby factory recently broken up in Bangkok. The Vietnamese women who were coerced or kidnapped and pressganged into having children were freed, thankfully.

Take, for instance, the vile attacks on a female reporter whose public rape in Egypt was evidently not punishment enough for practicing a man’s job while in possession of a vagina.

Take, for instance, this chaplain saying a female soldier’s rape was God’s will for the sin of not coming to church often enough. (Never mind that she’s also doing “a man’s job”.)

Take, for instance, the misogyny suffered by a woman who happens to own a pair of breasts, as though this should come as a great shock to a man of the intellectual caliber necessary to have produced the Death Wish films.

Take, for instance, the defunding of a Liverpool rape center when the numbers of people being helped are rising steadily and being carried over year after year.

Take, for instance, the demonstrable lies necessary to sustain the anti-sex lobby’s political agenda to reduce sex back to its (religiously) “rightful” role in society as a shameful act done only for the purposes of making babies.

Take, for instance, the Canadian judge’s decision to let a rapist walk because the victim “wore makeup” and “wanted to party”.

Take, for instance, Nebraska attempting to make legal the murder of abortion service providers, in a move that was recently stopped in South Dakota.

Take, for instance, the proposed Georgia law that all miscarriages should be investigated in case some of them turn out to be resultant from “back alley” abortion attempts.

These are, of course, all isolated incidents and should not be taken in aggregate to determine that any particular group of people — vagina-owners or otherwise — are under assault by society at large. Just, you know, make sure you have that baby if you happen to accidentally conceive. If you know what’s good for you. Even if you were raped, even if doctors say neither of you will survive, and even if you die from the attempt.

There is no larger trend of women being forced to be baby-makers

10 thoughts on “There is no larger trend of women being forced to be baby-makers

  1. 3

    That Canadian judge story is so discouraging. Way to go Manitoba, you’ll now get to celebrate a record low of 0 rape cases because no one will ever report one again .

  2. 4

    inevitably leading to more underage pregnancy

    My only quibble is that it’s not just young people. In The Greatest Nation The Earth Has Ever Seen(tm) a significant number of people can’t afford basic health care. Many who go to PP for everything from pap smears to contraceptive prescriptions won’t have that option.

    ’cause we know a back alley coat hanger abortion is so much better for everyone than a tax payer being forced to pay a thousandth of a cent* for some slut’s pills…

    * I don’t know the exact numbers, but they’re infinitesimal. Especially compared to the not-infinitesimal numbers we spend on ‘Defending’ our ‘Freedom’.

    Oh, and while I’m foaming, if we really want to balance the budget, then let’s pay for our fucking gas:

    HR1 has me PISSED.

  3. 5

    My comment seems to have been eaten by an anti-spam-bot…
    In short, it’s not just the young who will be affected by a PP shutdown. Lotsa people here in The Greatest Nation Ever Graced By God On This Green Earth can’t afford basic health care, like pap smears and contraceptives.

  4. 7

    You know, this is all great until you get to the part about the “anti-sex lobby.” (And PLEASE- stop calling it “anti-sex.” You are talking about anti-prostitution. BIG difference) Agenda “to reduce sex back to its (religiously) “rightful” role in society as a shameful act done only for the purposes of making babies.”? I’m sorry, but I hope you will look further into the complexities of the sex trade (legal and illegal) and the critics of it. An industry that relies on women’s sexuality being a luxury good? Not exactly in line with your more enlightened arguments here.

  5. 8

    … meant to type “anti-prostitution and anti-porn.” (Critics have legit arguments against mainstream porn, as with any other part of the sex trade.)

  6. 9

    Charline, there’s nothing about this lobby that recognizes women’s use of porn or enjoyment of sexual transactions. There’s nothing about it that recognizes anything but heterosexuality. There’s nothing about it that recognizes all the complicated reasons behind use of porn or all the complicated ways in which people use sexual transactions.

    Nor is there anything in it that recognizes that much of (particularly commercial) life is transactional in ways that don’t always benefit both parties equally but that no one seeks to have banned. The only thing that puts these kinds of transactions beyond the pale is that they involve sex. When the presence of sex is what makes something unacceptable, that makes it anti-sex.

  7. 10

    It would seriously help your argument, Charline, if you were to click through to the article linked. Stephanie and I both know you didn’t, because she wrote the first article I linked in that paragraph.

    The anti-sex lobby is anti-sex. One of the businesses frequently targeted is sex toy shops. Women are the largest purchasers of sex toys. If it was restricted entirely to lies about brothels, or lies about strip clubs, or lies about sex trafficking, then we could call them something else other than anti-sex. Interestingly, we’d still have to call them liars, because they are still demonstrable lies.

    I’m well aware that there are gender inequalities at work. I’m well aware that women often, if not most of the time, get the short shrift. But trading on sex is not inherently patriarchal. There are male escort services and male strippers; there is porn for women. And there is more nuance in what is I’m assuming to be your pet peeve — since you appear to be anti-porn and anti-prostitution — than you yourself appear to grasp. So much so that you’re willing to throw an ally against the anti-sex crowd under the bus. Think on that.

Comments are closed.