Choice Joyce

Cozy Bedfellows: Prostitution Abolitionists and Anti-Abortionists

2012-01-26T19:24:00.000-08:00

Feminists who want to abolish prostitution act offended when they get compared to the Christian Right, and may go to great lengths to dispute the parallels. For example, abolitionist Meghan Murphy laments (briefly) that prostitution abolitionists have been paired with the Christian Right in her article: “Why does the left want prostitution to be ‘a job like any other’?” and tries to address the issue here from the perspective of reproductive rights: “Why Reproductive Rights and Prostitution Are Not the Same Thing.” However, she fails to recognize the common ideologies that led her movement to shack up with fundamentalist Christians in the first place.

The link between religious conservatism and the movement to abolish sex work is rooted in antipathy to free sexual expression and autonomy, especially for women who dare to have sex in ways that offend moral sensibilities (sex for pleasure in the case of the Christian Right, and sex for money in the case of abolitionists). The belief that women need to be protected not only from others but from themselves gives abolitionist feminists the self-appointed right to speak for sex workers and to “rescue” them, in the same way that anti-abortionists have appointed themselves to rescue women from the “dangers” of abortion by criminalizing it and promoting abstinence until marriage.

I wrote a blog in 2007 that linked the prostitution and abortion debates as follows.

What is the difference between these two arguments?

1) Prostitution is always violence against women. It's physically dangerous, it victimizes them, robs them of their sexuality, and inflicts lasting psychological harm. Women never truly choose prostitution; they are forced into it by men, poverty, desperation, etc. We must give women better options by abolishing prostitution and helping them out of it.

2) Abortion is always violence against women. It's physically dangerous, it victimizes them, robs them of their motherhood role, and inflicts lasting psychological harm. Women never truly choose abortion; they are forced into it by men, poverty, desperation, etc. We must give women better options by banning abortion and helping them keep their babies.

Both the abolitionist movement and the anti-choice movement cast women as victims, often unwitting victims who think they’ve independently chosen to do sex work or have an abortion, but are actually seriously deluded or naïve—they don’t realize they’re under the coercive sway of patriarchy, capitalism, men, or the “culture of death.” Or maybe they’re just too poverty-stricken or drug-addicted to do anything but be a passive victim because they have “no choice.”

Abolitionists reinforce the victimhood of sex workers by calling them “prostituted women” while anti-abortionists do the same with “post-abortive women.” Those who truly choose abortion or sex work are thought to be rare exceptions to the rule of victimhood—women who insist on having an abortion are seen as unnatural and immoral by anti-abortionists, while abolitionists consider such sex workers to be privileged and elitist—or worse, as former sex worker Kerry Porth attests: “I have never experienced more judgement than what I hear from the prohibitionists. The fact that I don’t identify as a victim seems to transform me into some kind of demon in their eyes. I am hurt by and tired of hearing individuals like myself described as ‘prostituted women’ or ‘bought and sold’. I engaged in thousands of individual sex work transactions and not once did ownership of my body change hands.” (Personal communication)

Abolitionists only listen to the relatively small number of former survival sex workers who misinterpret the violence and abuse they suffered as caused by prostitution itself rather than its stigma and criminalization. These women now preach about the dangers of prostitution and advocate abolition to prevent other women from entering the trade. But how is that different from the women of “Silent No More” who had a bad experience with abortion and now preach about the dangers of abortion and advocate criminalizing it to prevent other women from having one? Like anti-abortionists, prostitution abolitionists purport to speak for all women regardless of differing experiences, but that wipes away the diversity of women’s opinions and experiences and reduces them to mere puppets of an ideology.

Many abolitionists downplay harm reduction as a temporary bandaid solution until prostitution can be abolished, and some don’t even believe in it at all because they feel it somehow validates prostitution. But how is that different than discredited conservative beliefs that giving addicts clean needles encourages drug abuse and criminality, that teaching kids about contraception leads to promiscuity and disease, and that legalizing abortion spawns a “culture of death” and an epidemic of abortion? (It doesn’t, just like legalizing sex work doesn’t increase it). The practical effect of giving short shrift to harm reduction is to leave survival sex workers vulnerable to abuse and violence without the benefit of proven measures to enhance safe working conditions. Women must not be left to work in an unsafe environment until we defeat patriarchy in some future utopia.

A striking hallmark of abolitionist ideology that is absent from the Christian Right is a general disparagement and even loathing for men. Abolitionists like Murphy see prostitution as a product of patriarchy and inequality, “male power and privilege,” and the insatiable “male demand for women’s bodies” that creates a market where women are “bought and sold.” Male clients of sex workers are painted as evil and violent predators, as if they are a different species than the men we all know and appreciate in our personal lives. They are not, of course. In the words of former sex worker Kerry Porth: “When people ask me what my clients were like, I usually tell them to think about their Dad.” Many men report that they respect and value sex workers and frequently develop emotional attachments to them. The vast majority of male clients are not violent, and most sex is of the “vanilla” sort. Also, the idea that men don’t “need” to buy sex is patently false. A significant number of male buyers are elderly, disabled, unattractive, lonely, socially awkward, etc., and just want a chance to enjoy female companionship. If only women in the same situations had equal opportunities to buy sex from men! But abolitionists are intent on depriving large numbers of people from any chance to enjoy sexual intimacy and human contact. We all need intimacy and sex, and if we are unable to get it from a normal relationship for whatever reason, we should be free to purchase it.

At every opportunity, abolitionists promote the “Nordic Model,” which criminalizes the purchase of sex (to target men), while decriminalizing the sale of sex (to rescue women). This is despite the fact that abolitionists see transactional sex as wrong, and bad for women. How is this different from anti-choicers who believe abortion is murder (and bad for women), but don’t want to criminalize women – only the “abortionists”? The underlying reason is that both abolitionists and anti-abortionists see women as not responsible for their choices and situations, as if they are children that need direction and protection from the state – a deeply paternalizing and insulting stance. Further, the wish to criminalize “abortionists” is no different than the wish to criminalize “pimps.” In reality, the latter are often the people that make a sex worker’s job possible, easier, and safer. Just as women need doctors, nurses, and counselors to help them obtain a safe abortion, sex workers need employers, drivers, and assistants in order to work safely.

In Murphy's article from last August (in response to a sex worker ally who made some comparisons between the abortion and sex work issues: “Why Reproductive Rights and Prostitution Are Not the Same Thing”), she says: “Reproductive rights provide women with control over their lives and bodies. Women should get to choose whether or not they have to give birth. Whether or not they want to raise children. They get to make those decisions. Not men. Abolitionists don't desire to criminalize women. They desire a world where women don't need to sell their bodies to men. They want to end violence against women and they want to end rape. As the author points out, 'Women die when abortion is not accessible.' They also die at the hands of pimps and johns. The criminalization of abortions hurts women, prostitution hurts women.”

Desiring a world where women don’t need to “sell their bodies to men” is no different than desiring a world where women don’t need to “kill their babies.” It’s paternalistic and removes women’s agency. Further, it’s not that “The criminalization of abortions hurts women, prostitution hurts women.” It’s that the criminalization of abortion hurts women in the same way that the criminalization of sex work hurts women. Because it’s not sex work itself that is inherently harmful, it’s criminalization. Sex work may be considered immoral, but that’s still no reason to criminalize it, just like it’s no reason to criminalize abortion. Women die when abortion is illegal, and they also die when sex work is illegal.

In the same article, Murphy says: “Arguing for women's right to access abortions and, therefore, hopefully, die less, is not in any way the same as arguing that women should not be subjected to violence at the hands of men and arguing that women don't exist as things which can be bought and sold and as things that exist to provide pleasure for men.” Actually, arguing for women’s right to access abortion so they can die less, is no different than arguing that women have the right to work legally and safely in sex work so that they can die less. Claiming that the sex industry treats women as things that can be bought and sold to provide pleasure to men, is no different than claiming that the “abortion industry” is out to make a profit by exploiting and coercing women into abortions, or committing genocide against non-white babies.

Murphy says: “How can the continuing criminalization by sexist, right wing men of access to abortion for women … be compared to attempts by feminist women to impede sexist men’s entitlement to the bodies of women whose lives are also on the line?” But many women’s groups are explicitly anti-choice (REAL Women, Concerned Women of America, Feminists for Life, etc.), and the rank and file of the anti-choice movement is filled with women. Anti-choice women and radical feminist abolitionists are the same in that they are both self-appointed policers of female sexuality on behalf of the patriarchy. They’re both trying to rescue women or keep them in line in order to preserve their sexuality and purity for love and marriage, or to keep it safe from all that “male demand” that sullies and devalues women.

Prostitution abolitionists and anti-abortionists share the same delusion that prostitution and abortion can be abolished through the use of criminal laws, even though this goes against all evidence and common sense. Both sex work and abortion have been around for thousands of years, and countless women have resorted to both for thousands of years, regardless of the laws or risks to their lives. Today, sex work is a multi-billion (or trillion?) dollar industry with millions of workers in every part of the globe regardless of legality, while 43 million abortions occur in the world every year - half of them in countries where it's illegal. Not only is it impossible to abolish such universal human behaviours, it is dangerous and unjust to criminalize them in any way because it always hurts women the most, especially the most marginalized.

The role of the criminal law is to prevent and punish crimes like rape, sexual abuse, violence, and coercion. Although those crimes certainly do occur in the context of sex work, abortion, and sexuality, they are not intrinsic to them. Sex does not victimize women. Women do not need to be protected from their own sexuality, or from male sexuality. They are perfectly able to make their own choices, to pursue sex or abstain, to sell sexual services or just have sex for fun, to be promiscuous or monogamous, to be lesbian or heterosexual or anything inbetween, to have children or be childfree, to go through pregnancy or have an abortion. Prostitution abolitionists and anti-abortionists do not get to decide any of that for them, and the criminal law should stay completely out of it.

The Trouble With Abolitionist Feminist Ideology

2012-01-25T20:28:00.000-08:00

While some feminists call for the abolition of sex work, other feminists favour its decriminalization. As a feminist who is strongly “pro-decrim” based on the evidence, feminist principles, and listening to sex workers, I’m disturbed by what I see as the wrongheaded ideology of abolitionist feminists, such as that exemplified by feminist and prostitution abolitionist Meghan Murphy.

Murphy writes for the F Word as well as the progressive website Rabble.ca. To pick one particular example, an article of hers posted on Rabble in October prompted a number of comments from offended sex workers and their allies. (A progressive dialogue: Building a progressive feminist movement in neo-liberal times) The commenters saw this abolitionist stance as paternalistic and profoundly anti-feminist, one that doesn’t listen to most sex workers and doesn’t respect their agency, and instead presumes to know what’s good for them and speaks for them. As commenter brownstargirl said: “This writing reminds me deeply of white feminist writing about how those oppressed women of color and Indigenous women really feel.”

Former sex worker and current activist Kerry Porth said: “I too have been ‘plagued with anger and frustration’ with individuals such as Ms. Murphy who, despite the fact that she has never engaged in sex work, feels that she has the right to speak on behalf of those who have. Indeed, my transition out of sex work was made all the more difficult and painful because although I have always considered myself to be a feminist, I soon discovered that within Vancouver, the division within feminism around sex work is one of the most intense and brutal that I have ever seen in any movement. Because I do not identify as a victim of sex work or exploitation, I have been repeatedly told that I am suffering from false consciousness or that my participation in sex work somehow directly contributes to harm against all women.” (Personal communication)

The harm to women comes not from sex workers—as if they are to blame for their own murders—but from the whole anti-sex work mentality. Commenter fc said: “This kind of [anti-sex work] discourse not only backs up policy packages that harm sex workers by further criminalizing people but it also nourishes stigma which very much feeds violence.”

Obviously, we all care about marginalized communities. The negative effects of colonialism, racism, and gender oppression are precisely why most sex workers want their work decriminalized, because they recognize the criminal laws as an institutionalized part of those oppressions. As commenter brownstargirl said: “The racist, capitalist, whorephobic, colonialist, sexist, ableist society we live in… creates the criminalization that makes working conditions dangerous for sex workers.”

Murphy paints a false caricature of the pro-decrim movement as “neo-liberal feminism” – characterized by a disconnection from progressive feminism, advocacy of individualism, an abandonment of marginalized women and the commitment to fight race and class oppression, and a capitulation to patriarchy, oppression, and capitalism. But pro-decrim feminists and countless sex worker groups fight for justice and labour rights for themselves around the world. As commenter fc stated: “To try and paint sex workers who are organizing as ‘neo-liberal’ and ‘individualistic’ to discredit their work is just a tactic to silence.”

Sex worker Susan Davis expressed her frustration with the feminist divide on sex work by observing: “The most difficult part is that we all agree on addressing the driving factors like poverty, addictions, mental health, livable wages and welfare rates, but for some reason can’t make that the common ground we all fight for.” (Personal communication) Likewise, former sex worker Kerry Porth said: “Sex worker activists are just as outraged about the violence and abuse we suffer as the prohibitionists, we just differ in how to address that harm. …pro-decrim and prohibitionist activists agree far more than we disagree on how to reduce violence against women, such as an increase in welfare rates, universal daycare, increased access to detox and drug treatment, better housing and so much more. Why can we not work together towards these goals?” (Personal communication)

The main reason is probably the stubborn abolitionist belief that sex work is inherently violent, despite a strong body of evidence to the contrary. Last year, Judge Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down three sections of Canada’s prostitution law because they increased the danger to sex workers. Evidence presented in court showed that indoor sex work is significantly safer than street work, and that it’s possible for sex workers to take various measures to increase their safety. However, the law explicitly prohibited many of those measures, including negotiating a transaction prior to jumping in a car, using drivers or guards, working in pairs or groups, and working at a brothel. The fact that sex workers can work much more safely by having greater control over their environment and the transaction, falsifies the abolitionist ideology that sex work is inherently violent or exploitive. That doesn’t mean there won’t always be some risk attached to it—but many other jobs carry risk too. The solution is to improve working conditions and implement labour rights and safety measures, not criminalize the profession itself.

Murphy and other abolitionists refuse to admit the role that our criminal law plays in increasing the risk of violence against sex workers. One abolitionist rebuttal of the Himel decision dismisses pro-decrim arguments by presenting ideology as evidence—sex work is inherently violent and male clients are predators; therefore decrim won’t help sex workers—end of argument. But commenter CGToronto pointed out that “The vast majority of all criminal legal attacks on sex workers—ranging from arrest to police rapes to murder—are against street-based workers. The vast majority of those who stand to benefit from decriminalization of sex work are those women.” She called on abolitionists to “[join] sex workers in calling for accountability from the Canadian government for creating, enforcing and defending laws that have been demonstrated to contribute to violence against sex workers.” Instead, as commenter fc stated: “Anti-sex work ‘feminism’ could also be called carceral feminism as its champions basically push for the use of law enforcement to ‘enforce’ social justice. This is harming sex workers and all of our communities.”

Abolitionists like to tout the Nordic or “Swedish model” of legislation, which criminalizes male clients, but not female sex workers. But criminalization is criminalization—sex workers cannot work reasonably or safely when their clients are criminalized. Evaluations of the Swedish law have not provided any credible evidence that the law works to reduce prostitution or make it safer. Instead, sex work has moved to different hidden venues where women continue to be vulnerable to violence because they can’t rely on the police to help them. (Many strong critiques of the Nordic model have been published, including this one from FIRST.)

In response to Murphy’s article (A progressive dialogue), sex worker Tuulia Law (member of SPOC and Students for Sex Workers Rights) notes: “It's very well and good to say end poverty to end the sex industry, but I have yet to see any specific plans to that end by prohibitionist feminists, who I would wager aren't opting out of capitalism personally by living off the grid. They are probably still shopping at the dollar store or buying things made in Third World countries, traveling, driving cars and eating imported food like other people who unthinkingly support the neo-liberal global order on a daily basis.” (Personal communication). Law’s remark is a bit facetious, but the point missed by abolitionists is that we all need to survive in the capitalist society around us by earning money.

In terms of actually addressing poverty and other social ills affecting the most marginalized sex workers, including drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness, it’s pro-decrim groups and sex worker activists—not abolitionists—who are at the forefront. Kerry Porth is the Executive Director of Vancouver’s PACE Society (Providing Alternatives Counselling & Education), an organization founded by active and former sex workers to deliver services to sex workers. Over 80% of PACE members are indigenous, and most sex worker-led organizations are similarly diverse, with memberships that are largely pro-decrim and reflect a range of backgrounds and experiences. Many offer exiting programs as well as resources and services for active workers to improve their working conditions. In the comments to Murphy’s article, brownstargirl said: “There are literally hundreds of diverse initiatives led by many kinds of sex workers speaking for themselves everywhere. … Murphy’s article ignores generations of genius, diverse theory and activism led by sex workers globally, from Kamataka Sexworkers Union in India to Different Avenues in DC and Women with a Vision in New Orleans, to Maggies and the Native Youth Sexual Health Network right here in Toronto.”

Abolitionists gloss over the diversity of sex work, focusing almost exclusively on the 10-20% of sex workers who work on the street and who are disproportionately aboriginal. But most workers work indoors, including in their own homes or as escorts for an agency, or in brothels and massage parlours. Abolitionists also pretend that prostitution is an issue of male demand for women’s bodies, but significant minorities of sex workers are male or transgendered. These workers are completely ignored and abandoned by abolitionists because they don’t fit into their “women are victims of the patriarchy” dogma. But a U.S. Department of Justice study in 2008 found that 45% of underage sex workers in New York City were boys. That same study found that 90% of underage sex workers in NYC did not have “pimps” and worked independently. Actually, most sex workers work independently, although they may rely on others to help them.

Murphy treats with disdain the idea that sex work can be freely chosen and empowering for women. But most sex workers do choose to enter the trade, including sex worker Tuulia Law: “I chose sex work out of several job options. Many people choose sex work under various conditions. Survival sex workers are a minority in the industry, whose experiences can in no way be said to represent the entire industry.” (Personal communication). From former sex worker Kerry Porth: “Despite the moral outrage some feminists feel about our choices, some women do actually choose to engage in sex work.” Porth recognizes that “some women will be forced by circumstances to engage in sex work,” but that their work should “enjoy the same protections as all other individuals forced by circumstances to do jobs they find distasteful.” I would add that although choices are limited for survival sex workers, even highly constrained choices are still choices, and the people who make them still have agency and deserve dignity and human rights, even if they don’t feel empowered by their work. However, sex work can be empowering for the simple reason that it allows sex workers to pay the bills and support their families, and sometimes much more. The main reason people become sex workers in the first place is to earn money, and abolitionist ideology poses a threat to their livelihoods.

Murphy speaks of women “selling their bodies to men with power,” even though the power dynamic is generally the other way around. When sex workers have control over their transactions—such as the ability to negotiate fees and services up front, refuse clients, insist on condom use, and so on, they are far safer. Currently, indoor workers tend to have more transactional control than street workers, because criminalization often prevents street workers from taking safety measures and setting their own terms and conditions.

The abolitionist view of male clients is a degrading one that demonizes male sexuality and needs. It’s reminiscent of the radical feminist trope that “all men are rapists,” based on the suspicion that sex itself is violent because the penis is like a weapon and penetration is an act of dominance over a woman. But men are human beings with legitimate sexual needs and desires. They can’t help having penises, and heterosexual women, generally speaking, enjoy penetration. The biological differences between male and female sexuality are natural and meant to be enjoyed by both cisgenders, not politicized in order to cast men as predators and women as victims. That false stance does profound harm to both.

Murphy devotes a lot of space to criticizing Slutwalk, including claiming that its participants “play to a male gaze.” But I attended the Slutwalk march in Vancouver last year and was impressed by the diversity of the crowd and the large number of men who attended—not to ogle women, but to support them. Murphy misses the point anyway—the essence of Slutwalk is to sever the link between women’s desire to look sexually attractive and feel like sexual beings, and the sexist presumption that women who do so are automatically consenting to sexual activity and therefore are “dirty sluts” and whores. Women should be able to dress how they want without it being linked to any expectation or judgment by others about their sexual behaviour. In other words, stilettos and miniskirts don’t have to be a symbol of patriarchy and female victimology, they can symbolize women’s autonomy and free sexual expression instead.

Slutwalk also emphasizes that women have the right to enjoy sex, including casual sex—with consent and respect being the issues that matter, not the way they dress. Abolitionists don’t see it that way of course, because they interpret many forms of female sexual expression as a product of patriarchal oppression. Once again, this removes women’s agency and whitewashes their sexuality. As sex worker Tuulia Law notes: “[Abolitionists] are shaming people, including slutwalkers, for having sex in a way that offends their sensibilities.” (Personal communication)

Many angry exchanges have occurred in the comments sections of Meghan Murphy’s articles because of her disrespect for and dismissal of any sex worker that does not fit into her victim paradigm. Such actions are decidedly not feminist. Until the abolitionist movement is willing to listen to and respect the diverse voices of all sex workers, including the majority of both indoor and street workers who want full decriminalization of prostitution, they have no business calling themselves feminists.

The Limits of Free Speech

2011-09-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

The popular catchphrase of free speech defenders is a quote attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Civil libertarians often defend and support the notion that the right to freely express offensive opinions is a bedrock human right that should not be abridged except under very narrow circumstances—typically for hate speech that directly incites violence against a person or group of persons. However, I support broader prosecution of hate speech—defined here as speech that disparages a person or class of persons based on an immutable characteristic (colour, race, origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age), or their occupation, family or marital status, and religion or lack of religion. Proscribing hate speech more broadly would, I believe, foster a more inclusive, tolerant, and safer society.

Many western countries already do criminalize hate speech in a more encompassing way, although enforcement is often weak and spotty. A typical example is

Canada

, where it is illegal to “expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt…on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination” (Canadian Human Rights Act) and to “wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group” (Criminal Code of Canada). The United States, however, stands almost alone in its veneration of free speech at almost any cost. The U.S. Supreme Court insists that the First Amendment protects hate speech unless it constitutes a “ true threat” or will incite imminent lawless action.

But societies should take action against hate speech without requiring that a few specific words by themselves must directly and immediately incite violence, or be likely to. That sets a very high bar and is difficult to prove. It also allows purveyors of hate to evade responsibility simply by not making explicit calls for violence. Further, our new digital world raises the stakes—the Internet has spawned a proliferation of hate speech along with useful information such as bomb-making instructions or the home addresses of abortion providers. This has enabled others to commit violence long after the words were first published.

Violent acts of hate are generally preceded by hate speech that is expressed publicly and repeatedly for years, including by public figures, journalists, leading activists, and even the state. Some examples include Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist acts in Norway (June 2011), the assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (May 2009) and other abortion providers in the 1990’s, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (1994), and the Nazi Holocaust.

Courts of law should be able to look at broader patterns of hate speech in the culture to determine whether a hateful atmosphere inspired or contributed to violence, or would likely lead to future violence. When hate speech is relatively widespread and acceptable (such as against Muslims or abortion providers), it’s not difficult to see the main precursor to violence—an escalation of negative behaviour or rhetoric against the person or group. Dr. George Tiller endured a previous assassination attempt and a decades-long campaign of persecution waged by the anti-abortion movement, which worsened over time, especially in the last year or two of the doctor’s life. Anders Behring Breivik had actively opposed multiculturalism for years and had immersed himself in Christian Right propaganda about the supposed threat of Muslim immigration to Europe, a view popularized only in recent years by a growing army of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing journalists.

As these examples illustrate, we can often pinpoint the main purveyors of hate speech that lead to violent crimes. In the Norway shootings, the killer Breivik relied heavily on writings from Peder Jensen (“Fjordman”), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, Front Page Magazine, and others. Such individuals and groups should be charged with incitement to hatred and violence. Similar culpability for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller should rest on the shoulders of the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly.

In general, anyone spewing hate to an audience, especially on a repeated basis, could be held criminally responsible. This would include politicians, journalists, organizational leaders and speakers, celebrities, bloggers and hosts of online forums, and radical groups that target certain categories of people. We also need to hold people in accountable positions to a higher standard, such as government employees and contractors, ordained religious leaders, CEOs, and the like.

Criteria by which to assign culpability could include a speaker’s past record of prior hate speech against a particular person or group, how widely and frequently the views were disseminated, and the specific content and framing of their views. In cases where violence has already occurred, judges could determine how likely it was that the violent perpetrators had been exposed to someone’s specific hate speech, and hand down harsher sentences to the speaker accordingly.

The Harms of Hate Speech

The apparent assumption of free speech defenders is that offensive speech is essentially harmless—that is, just words with no demonstrable link to consequences. But questioning whether speech can really incite someone to bad behaviour seems irresponsibly obtuse. Obviously, words have consequences and frequently inspire actions. A primary purpose of language is to communicate with others in order to influence them. If that weren’t so, there would be no multi-billion dollar advertising industry, no campaigns for political office, no motivational speakers or books, no citizen-led petitions, no public service announcements, and no church sermons, along with a myriad of other proven examples where speech leads others to act.

The majority of hate speech is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and religious minorities. It’s no coincidence that straight white men are generally the most ardent defenders of near-absolute free speech, because it’s very easy to defend hate speech when it doesn’t hurt you personally. But hate speech is destructive to the community at large because it is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination. It sets the stage for violence by those who take the speaker’s message to heart, because it creates an atmosphere of perceived acceptance and impunity for their actions. Left unchecked, it can lead to war and genocide, especially when the state engages in hate speech, such as in Nazi Germany.

Hate speech also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many years or a lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportunities, push them into poverty, isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflict with authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. In 1990, the Canadian Supreme Court stated that hate speech can cause “loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct.” The court agreed that “hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners…that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior,” which can increase “acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence.”

In democratic societies that stand for equality and freedom—often with taxpayer-funded programs that promote those values by assisting vulnerable groups—it makes no sense to tolerate hate speech that actively works to oppose those values. Further, hate speech violates the spirit of human rights codes and laws, diminishing their purpose and effect. A society that allows hate speech is a society that tolerates prejudice at every level—politically, economically, and socially—and pays the consequences through increased discrimination and violence.

Answering Objections from Hate Speech Defenders

The most popular solution to the problem of hate speech is “more free speech.” This seems to make sense on the surface, and sometimes works well in practice. For example, there are many outspoken atheists who do a good job of publicly defending themselves and their fellow atheists from the prejudice and hatred too often expressed by religious people. But even if the targets of hatred can ably defend themselves from verbal violence, why should they have to? Why should a democratic society privilege the right to free speech over the well-being and privacy of those with less privilege?

Most vulnerable groups, however, do not have a level playing field on which to respond to hate speech against them. They are often outnumbered, out-resourced, and out-funded by the haters, simply because of their disadvantaged position in society. Sexism and racism are still thriving in the 21^st century, which means women and most minority groups have a harder time getting published and heard and taken seriously in mainstream society. Which brings us full circle—perhaps one of the reasons sexism and racism are still so prevalent in modern society is because free speech is exercised largely by the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged.

A common objection to prosecuting hate speech is that it might endanger speech that counters hate speech. For example, a critique may repeat the offending words and discuss their import, or it may subvert the hate message in a subtle or creative way that could be misunderstood by some. But context is everything when determining whether speech is actually hateful or not, so this objection seems nonsensical. Any reasonable judge should be able to discern the difference in intent or effect behind a hateful message and the speech that critiques it.

Another objection is that prosecuting hate speech removes accountability from those who actually commit the violence, turning violent perpetrators into victims of hate speech. But no-one is suggesting that hate speech causes people to act against their will or takes away their personal responsibility. Typically, hate speech creates an environment in which a person who is already sympathetic to the views of the speaker feels validated and encouraged to take action, with a reduced fear of punitive consequences and even anticipation of praise and support from the in-group that shares their views. Nothing prevents a hate-inspired murderer from being prosecuted in the same way as any other violent murderer—in fact, many countries mete out harsher penalties for hate-motivated crimes. But those who inspired the murderer should also be prosecuted separately under hate speech laws.

Many people seem to treat freedom of expression as an almost sacred, inviolable right, but this is far from the reality. In constitutional democracies, free speech is already justifiably restricted in a multitude of ways by law or policy, even in the United States. The quintessential example of prohibited speech is falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Besides hate speech itself, some other generally accepted prohibitions of speech include:

Sedition (advocating force as a way to change the government)
Threats
Defamation (libel and slander)
False or misleading advertising
Buffer zones around abortion clinics that prevent anti-abortion protesters from harassing patients and staff
Quiet zones near hospitals or schools
Municipal bylaws restricting the location, size, type, content, and display of signs, posters, objects, ads, etc.
Profanity on public airwaves
Publication refusal, censorship, and the right to edit enforced by news websites, online forums and blogs, newspapers, magazines, radio, and other media
Company confidentiality policies (such as employees being prohibited from sharing trade secrets or talking to the media)
Gag orders or publication bans in contracts, court cases, and settlements

In practice, courts will look at circumstances on a case-by-case basis to see where a balance should be struck between freedom of expression and some other value or right. No single right trumps another in all circumstances, not even the right to life. For example, Canada’s constitution (Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) allows a fundamental right such as freedom of expression to be limited to protect someone else’s fundamental rights, such as the right to life or liberty—or in the case of abortion, women’s right to safely access a necessary medical service, which courts have determined outweighs the protesters’ right to protest outside clinics.

Some current legal restrictions on free speech are not on the above list because they are clearly illegitimate. One of those is insulting your country’s head of state, currently illegal in at least eight countries, mostly in western Europe. This offence is called “lese-majesty,” a holdover from the days when kings were divine. But if political leaders are immune to criticism or ridicule, they have far too much power over the people and the country cannot be a true democracy. In general, the public must be allowed to pass judgment on public figures, because the latter owe their position to public support in the first place, which should not be coerced or bought. For example, public figures in the U.S. are not protected from defamation unless it was done with malice—knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

Many countries also criminalize blasphemy—the criticism of religious doctrines or practices. But the desire to protect religion from criticism is simply a reflection of the insecurity of believers who doubt their own beliefs. Blasphemy laws have more in common with hate speech actually, because they often result in hateful rhetoric and violent acts against the “blasphemers.” Further, many religious people have a tendency to confuse hate speech with dissent, such as Catholics who hurl accusations of “bigotry” when someone criticizes Church policies or dogma. But hate speech is personal—it is directed against people based on their identifiable characteristics. Dissent on the other hand is speech against other opinions, beliefs, or positions. Dissent is an essential component of a free democracy, and it includes blasphemy. In other words, you should be free to attack Catholic policies that protect abusive priests, but it would be hateful to say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

Examples of Anti-Abortion Hate Speech That Should Be Prosecuted

The history of violence against abortion providers makes a very strong case for prosecution of those who disseminate hate speech against them. Almost all of this violence has occurred in the U.S., which makes a compelling argument for limiting First Amendment protections of hate speech.

On a Sunday morning in May 2009, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was assassinated while attending church in Wichita Kansas. The killer, Scott Roeder, had been planning the act for some time and had gleaned information about the doctor’s movements from Operation Rescue—an anti-abortion group that Roeder was actively involved in and donated money to. This radical group had moved to Wichita in 2002 for the sole purpose of driving Dr. Tiller out of business, and in the seven years leading up to his murder, Operation Rescue (OR) engaged in a relentless campaign of hate and harassment against him, including aggressive picketing, numerous articles and press releases, baseless criminal charges, frivolous lawsuits, and trumped-up grand juries convened against him. (Dr. Tiller was fully vindicated in every legal battle.)

Two years before the assassination, Roeder posted on OR’s blog, urging people to attend Dr. Tiller’s church. He himself attended the church a few times, and also participated in OR’s pickets outside Dr. Tiller’s clinic. Roeder was in regular contact with OR’s President Troy Newman, as well as Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who was convicted in 1988 of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic. When Roeder was arrested, Sullenger’s phone number was found on a post-it note on the dash of his car. Sullenger later admitted having several previous conversations with Roeder, in which she gave him information on Dr. Tiller’s habits and whereabouts, including his trial dates. In the months before the murder, Roeder had attended at least one court hearing—sitting beside OR’s President Troy Newman—to hear Dr. Tiller defend himself against scurrilous charges brought by OR.

It’s clear that Roeder was not a “lone wolf.” Perhaps Roeder did not directly involve anyone else in his plans, but no-one develops their views in a vacuum. Dr. Tiller’s murder was the natural culmination of over 20 years of anti-abortion harassment and violence directed at him and his clinic, much of it by Operation Rescue. Roeder had been immersed in OR’s violent anti-abortion rhetoric for years, so his beliefs and compulsions were fed by that environment, and thrived on it. Obviously, it played an encouraging role in the violence he committed.

Another key person who helped fuel the fire was Fox TV commentator Bill O'Reilly, who has about 3 million listeners. Between 2005 and 2009, Bill O'Reilly and his guest hosts talked about Dr. Tiller on 29 episodes, including just one month before the assassination. The most common epithet repeated many times by O’Reilly was: "Tiller the Baby Killer." Other comments by O’Reilly included: "[Tiller] destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He 's guilty of "Nazi stuff." "This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union." He “has blood on his hands.” He’s “a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida.” He operates a “death mill” and a “business of destruction.” “I wouldn't want to be [him] if there is a Judgment Day.” Although O'Reilly didn't specifically incite someone to murder Dr. Tiller, he put him in the cross-hairs, providing enough motivation and encouragement for someone to carry out the unspoken deed.

Of course, it wasn’t just Dr. Tiller and his clinic that were the targets of ongoing harassment and inflammatory hateful rhetoric. The reign of terror directed at clinics and providers across North America has been going on for 35 years—including 9 previous murders and 20 attempted murders of doctors or clinic staff, 100’s of arsons and bombs and butyric acid attacks, and 1000’s of death threats, stalking, clinic invasions, vandalism, aggressive pickets, and hate mail. Some shootings in the early 1990’s were directly preceded by “Wanted Posters” put out by anti-abortion groups on the doctors, complete with their home and clinic addresses and often their photographs. Doctors David Gunn and John Britton were murdered by anti-abortion extremists and had been featured on wanted posters, along with George Tiller, who was shot and wounded in 1993. (The murder of a fourth doctor on a wanted poster, George Patterson, could not be conclusively linked to an anti-abortion extremist.) The posters were deemed by a federal court in 2002 to be a “true threat” under the FACE Act, federal legislation that protects clinics from violence. Noting that the posters had preceded the murders, the court said it was the “use of the ‘wanted’-type format in the context of the poster pattern—poster followed by murder—that constitutes the threats,” not the language itself. With this decision, the judges overturned a lower court ruling that had deemed the posters and a related website to be “protected speech” because they did not directly threaten violence.

Conclusion

When people and courts defend hate speech against abortion providers as “protected speech,” it must be asked: Why are abortion providers required to risk their lives so their persecutors can have free speech rights? Why should doctors constantly have to look over their shoulder in fear, go to work in bullet-proof vests, pay out of pocket for security guards and other expensive safety measures, keep their home address a secret and their curtains permanently drawn shut, and see their children ostracized and bullied at school, just so their persecutors have the right to call them “baby killers”? Why does the right to free speech allow members of this vulnerable minority to be openly defamed and targeted for decades until they’re finally assassinated? And why do the families of the slain victims have to suffer in their grief and loss, because free speech was deemed more important than the lives of their loved ones?

The idea that vulnerable persons and groups should have to tolerate hate speech against them in the name of freedom of expression—often over decades or a lifetime—is offensive. We’re talking about peoples’ lives after all—this is not just a philosophical debate. The right to free speech is a fundamental value, but it should not be allowed to outweigh the basic human rights of other people, especially their right to life.

Defending Motherhood by Murdering Pregnant Women?

2011-02-16T08:55:00.000-08:00

Regarding the Christian Taliban in charge of the South Dakota legislature right now, I found myself parsing the wording of the proposed South Dakota law that would legalize the killing of abortion providers as "justifiable homicide." I read this article at Feministing that pointed out that pregnant women seeking abortion might also be justifiably murdered under this law. A commenter there, "Nick B," responded that the law specifies that only the pregnant woman is allowed to kill someone in defense of her fetus.

I believe Nick is wrong. Here's the actual wording of the bill itself, which has two provisions:

22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

I'm a writer and not a lawyer (although I've had to interpret quite a bit of legislation in my technical writing work), but here's my literal interpretation of the law's wording in relation to defense of a fetus.

The first provision means that the pregnant woman herself can kill someone in defense of her fetus. The second provision means that anyone - let's say "Joe" - can kill someone who is a threat to the fetus of Joe's pregnant spouse, parent, child, employer, or employee. This can be seen by dropping the middle clause from the second provision, which is unnecessary and not part of the "unborn child" clause:

"Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of ... the unborn child of any such enumerated person..."

This wording would not necessarily preclude Joe from killing the pregnant woman herself, since from a legal standpoint, the "person" being defended (the fetus in this case) is not required to survive Joe's rescue attempt in order for Joe to be justified in acting in its defense.

The idea of killing a pregnant woman in order to defend her fetus may seem absurd, but it actually makes perfect sense from the anti-choice viewpoint. When the law recognizes the fetus as a separate being with rights, its physical dependence on a woman for survival becomes irrelevant. It's also consistent with Catholic doctrine, as Catholic hospitals will let pregnant women die along with their fetuses rather than do an abortion that would save the woman's life. Remember that the focus of the anti-choice movement is not on saving fetuses, but on compelling women to fulfill their motherhood role - to which they can be sacrificed because that is their reason for being. Further, the large and influential extremist wing of the movement would believe that such a sacrifice is especially justified when a pregnant woman requires punishment - e.g., because she had sex out of wedlock or is considering an abortion. Her punishment (being murdered) would also serve as a good lesson to other pregnant women considering abortion.

Catholic Bishops need my writing help

2010-10-13T10:57:00.000-07:00

Dear Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland,

I was puzzled by your recent anti-abortion statement condemning the "First All-Ireland Conference on Abortion and Clinical Practices." On your press release, you say "Every human life is worthy of protection from the moment of conception to natural death. The dignity of the human person is absolute and inviolable. We call on public representatives to ... promote and defend a legislative environment which respects the inherent dignity of life in all it stages."

However, this statement is not an accurate reflection of your own views (which I'm quite familiar with). So I have taken the liberty of helpfully rewriting it for you:

"Every human life is worthy of protection from the moment of conception to natural death, except for pregnant women. The dignity of men and fetuses is absolute and inviolable, while the dignity of women is subject to their reproductive capacity. We call on public representatives to ... promote and defend a legislative environment which respects the inherent dignity of life in all it stages, except during the child-bearing years of women."

You also "deplored" and "opposed" the conference because "Respect should be shown in all circumstances for the life and well-being of both the mother and the unborn child." Unfortunately, this statement also contradicts your real views, so please allow me to offer a corrected version here as well:

"Respect should be shown in all circumstances for the life and well-being of the fetus, but not necessarily the mother. The fetus always takes precedence over the mother and abortion is never permissible. In cases where aborting the fetus would save the life of the mother, both must die.” (Citations: Arizona, Poland, Council of Europe.)

As a writer who prides herself on accuracy, I would be happy to offer my services to help clarify many other inaccurate written statements by the Catholic Bishops or the Church in general (such as those that castigate children for tempting priests to break their vow of celibacy).

Thank you for your kind consideration!

Sincerely,
Joyce Arthur
Vancouver BC

Show the Lies

2008-08-27T15:01:00.000-07:00

Annual “Show the Truth” tour traumatizes communities with offensive lies

In mid-August, the anti-abortion group “Show the Truth” embarked on a multi-city tour of southern Ontario, covering Windsor, Leamington, Chatham, London, St. Thomas, Sarnia, Woodstock, and Stratford (see links below for several news stories).

The tour involves showing large photos of alleged aborted fetuses, in an effort to shock people out of their complacency with the “truth” of abortion. However, the tour caused great offense to probably thousands of people, including many with anti-abortion beliefs, because of the protesters' tasteless, in-your-face shock tactics. Hundreds of people wrote angry letters to the editor or called police to complain. One woman in Stratford said she would pursue pressing charges against the group for traumatizing her 10-year old daughter. The fact that the tour inflicts real harm on communities and families exposes the lie of the protesters’ "pro-life" position.

A common theme throughout most of the letters and editorials, is that the fetus photos were assumed to be true representations of abortion - even if they were deemed inappropriate to show in public. But the "Show the Truth" tour has absolutely nothing to do with truth. It's pure propaganda. How is showing a hugely magnified fetus, totally removed from its original context, supposed to tell us anything about abortion?

Something that's totally erased from these pictures, indeed from the entire debate, is the women who make the difficult decision to have an abortion for various compelling and personal reasons. What gives the protesters the right to show graphic photos of fetuses that once were a private part of a woman’s body and life? If being “pro-life” is supposedly all about respecting life, then why are the protesters treating both women and fetuses with such outrageous disrespect?

The photos are totally unrepresentative of modern abortion practice. The vast majority of abortions are done in the early stages, when the embryo or fetus is the size of a cashew or much smaller. Yet, the protester photos are grossly enlarged, and usually depict later-term fetuses. I’m reminded of what an abortion clinic nurse once said, after she had just viewed a horrifying anti-abortion film replete with these types of pictures. I’ll let Dr. William Harrison, an abortion provider from Arkansas tell the story:

After the video was over, [a friend] said to her, "I suppose you are accustomed to seeing this." She, appropriately appalled by what she had just seen, replied, "I have never seen anything like that in my life!" Well, I've never seen anything like that either, and I see the face of abortion almost every working day.

One might ask why there’s such a huge discrepancy between what abortion doctors see every day, and the photos shown by anti-abortion protesters. According to doctors who can tell the difference, it's because many photos actually depict natural miscarriages or stillbirths. Also, a 1998 book by Cynthia Gorney (Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars) relates how some photos have been cleverly staged by anti-choice photographers using stolen body parts from hospitals. Some of these older photos date back at least 40 years, to a time when abortion was illegal. If any of them actually show an abortion, it's the height of irony that the anti-abortion movement wants a return to the very thing their pictures are protesting. But in fact, anti-abortionists cannot prove their photos are of abortion at all. They have no documented legitimate sources for most of them, if any. For all we know, they could have been created in Photoshop - and until they prove otherwise, that's probably what we should assume.

Showing false and highly offensive pictures in public may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances. Regardless, it's neither moral nor appropriate. If you wanted to protest child sexual abuse, would you show a large colour poster of a 6-year old being raped? The protesters unwittingly sabotage their cause, because the only truth the public sees is the face of fanatical extremism.

_____________________________
Links to news articles:

* Stratford City Gazette, Aug 20, Abortion protest graphics upset girl, mom
* Woodstock Sentinel Review, Aug 19, Pro-life group protests
* Stratford Beacon Herald, Aug 16, Onlookers angered by graphic anti-abortion presentation
* London Free Press, Aug 15, Abortion protest group is doing nothing wrong
* London Free Press, Aug 14, Pro-life protest rattles region (St. Thomas)
* Chatham Daily News, Aug 14, Wrong place for message
* Chatham Daily News, Aug 13, Anti-abortion protest held

Fetal Foot-in-the-backdoor

2008-02-16T08:08:00.000-08:00

A slippery slope law that is a foot-in-the-door to restrict or re-criminalize abortion is scheduled for a Parliamentary vote in Canada on March 5 - the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill C-484). If it passes - and there's a chance it might! - it will be the first ever law in Canada that recognizes fetuses as persons, by making them a separate homicide victim when a pregnant woman is murdered.

Bill C-484 conflicts directly with:

• our federal Criminal Code, which says a fetus does not become a person until it's born alive
• our Constitution, which gives full rights and equality to women
• our Supreme Court case law, which says that a woman and her fetus are one person under the law and all rights accrue to the woman

Bill C-484 was written and introduced by an anti-choice Member of Parliament, and anti-abortion goups are its main promoters. They're trying to be clever by excluding legal abortion from prosecution, as well as "acts or omissions" by the pregnant woman. But these exclusions have not stopped arrests of pregnant women in some U.S. states under similar laws for drug abuse. Simply by creating personhood for fetuses, this bill compromises the rights of ALL pregnant women, including those with wanted pregnancies.

Let's help pregnant women instead! The tragic murder of a pregnant woman by her male partners is domestic violence. It is a crime against HER. She is the victim, and the act should be punished as an attack on HER bodily integrity. But this bill doesn't protect pregnant women at all - it only creates personhood for fetuses. If we want to protect fetuses, the best solution is protect their sole caretakers, pregnant women. Let's give pregnant women the supports and resources they need for good pregnancy outcomes, including protection from domestic violence.

Criminal justice can also be achieved in these tragic cases in better ways. Prosecutors can recommend more serious charges and judges may impose harsher penalties. In fact, more serious penalties are already mandated under the Criminal Code's hate crime law, which would cover attacks against women because they are pregnant. These measures would provide justice, while avoiding the abortion controversy and protecting the rights of all pregnant women. There is simply no need for Bill C-484, except as an anti-abortion measure to smuggle fetal rights through the backdoor.

Please sign a petition opposing Bill C-484!

Here are 14 "Talking Points" against Bill C-484.

"Abolish Abortion"? NOT!

2007-07-02T11:36:00.000-07:00

A Media Lesson from Canada

Canada's 140th birthday (Canada Day - July 1st) has come and gone. And this morning, the pro-choice majority is heaving a sigh of relief at the barely-there national media coverage given to the so-called "greatest pro-life victory this country has ever had."

Here's the scoop on the biggest news story on abortion to hit the Canadian airwaves in the last year (if not years!).

Canada's largest national media broadcaster, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; government run and funded) launched an online contest on its website in late May called the "Great Canadian Wish Contest." In an effort to mobilize youth, they invited average Canadians to post their dreams for a better Canada on Facebook Facebook. The CBC promised prominent national TV coverage on Canada Day for the winning wish.

Expecting an avalanche of noble desires like a cleaner environment, more peacekeeping, or even just lower tuition fees, the CBC instead got...

"Abolish Abortion in Canada."

Yes, that became the #1 wish almost immediately by a very wide margin, and it maintained its lead pretty much throughout. In protest, a valiant pro-choice supporter posted a contrary wish, "I wish that Canada would remain pro-choice." This wish soon moved into 2nd place, and steadily gained on the "Abolish Abortion" wish, but was still defeated in the end by a 15% margin.

For an idea of how much of a mixed-bag farce this contest quickly became, just take a look at the top 15 wishes for progressive, liberal Canada (total votes in brackets):

- Abolish Abortion in Canada (9652)
- I wish that Canada would remain pro-choice (8154)
- For a spiritual revival in our nation (4553) [back to "our Lord Jesus Christ"]
- Restore the Traditional Definition of Marriage (4535) [to ban gay marriage]
- I wish tuition fees would be either lowered or eliminated (3444)
- It's time for drastic measures to save our environment (3406)
- Canada should keep ABORTIONS and GAY MARRIAGE legal! (2379)
- A Canada where no one must choose between paying rent and their medication (1972)
- Proportional representation (1837)
- Greener Canada (1323)
- I wish same sex marriages will continue to be legal in Canada (1091)
- Make Tim Hortons' cups recyclable (871)
- Recognition of personhood before birth (848)
- A healthy Canada: Dreaming of the "greatest kind of wealth" for all (831)
- Tim Hortons for our troops (738)

(Tim Hortons is a beloved coffee shop chain in Canada, as ubiquitious and popular as MacDonalds in America. I can only profess puzzled amazement that something about hockey didn't make into the top contenders!)

Anyway, the CBC, normally a bastion of liberal virtues in Canada, was rightly horrified at the way the contest unfolded. To quote the moderator of the Wish Contest website, the CBC's Meribeth Deen (personal correspondence):

You have no idea how much stress the fighting over this issue has been causing me. This is NOT what I expected from this project.

Yes, this thing has certainly veered off in a nasty and uncomfortable direction. But we're kind of in a tough position here - do we just can this thing? Then we really get in trouble, for being clearly not even willing to talk about it. Really, there are all kinds of things I'd rather be talking about.

So the CBC kept on truckin', and the anti-choice and pro-choice forces mobilized to try and outdo each other. The anti-choice contingent had the advantage of organizing their networks early and forcefully. In contrast, the pro-choice contingent was a janey-come-lately, dragged along for the ride in reluctant protest. Many pro-choicers refused to participate because of the sheer stupidity of the whole thing, and their anger at the CBC for starting it, then letting it go on. The overall atmosphere during the online contest soured quickly, because of the unseemly back-and-forth slugfest between the pro-choice and anti-choice sides, accusations of cheating by both sides, inept handling by the CBC, and some major technical glitches on both the CBC website and Facebook.

The battle soon captured the attention of other national media. Stories were done by the Globe & Mail (a national newspaper) and the Canadian Press (the national wire service), whose story was also picked up by CTV (one of CBC's main competitors). Numerous bloggers and smaller media outlets also reported on the situation. The bulk of the coverage focused on the discomforting and embarrassing predicament the CBC had naively blundered into.

So what did the CBC do when it came to its promised extensive national media coverage of the winning wish? They did their best to deep-six it. A three-minute segment aired only once, at 7:35 a.m. EST yesterday, ensuring a tiny audience across the country. The clip seemed fair to the "Abolish Abortion" wish, but the reporter stressed how it wasn't a poll, just a contest, how anti-choice support was solicited through anti-abortion groups and churches, and how most Canadians are actually pro-choice.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the CBC's cowardice or courage (?), stupidity or cleverness (?), but it's rather a shame in retrospect that pro-choice supporters were forced to mobilize for this silly contest, which in the end didn't get its promised national coverage. On the other hand, it was very gratifying to see the huge amount of pro-choice support expressed on Facebook and the CBC website, with tens of thousands of messages pouring in. The pro-choice movement worries about apathy on abortion rights in Canada, especially among youth, but it's nice to see that people DO care and will become energized when there's a "threat." And this was not a real threat by any means - if this is the best the anti-choice can do to gain national attention for their cause in Canada, then maybe we really have something to smile about up here!

Of course, the anti-choice crowd disagrees, as exemplified by this revealing blog by John Pachenko. Crowing enthusiastically about the ascendancy of the "pro-life" movement in Canada because of the success of the "Abolish Abortion" wish, his grandiose pronouncements include:

1) We have developed a formidable network through Facebook for the next of many future battles.

2) This represents the greatest pro-life victory this country has ever had. As such, it is a strong inspiration for us. It showed us that we are not the minority. And we can win in a scrap.

3) Since the pro-abort side didn't win, it's much worse for them then they could possibly imagine. Their demography is being aborted while ours is not. Do the math and extrapolate.

4) There are sure to be more initiatives and challenges by the pro-life community to the abortion situation in this country in the near future. I know of one personally that is going to blow the lid off of the abortion muzzle in this country. You'll know it when it hits the media....and it will hit the media. Guaranteed.

Today, the pro-aborts and their mouthpiece, the CBC, got handed their arses on a plate. For an issue that has been pushed to the fringes for years, Canada's No. 1 wish is to ban something that was considered nothing less than a sacrament. If you listen closely you can almost hear the pro-aborts' grinding and gnashing of teeth.

The glaring holes and delusionary biases in the above analysis hardly need comment. Only the first point may have some merit, but it works both ways, doesn't it? The rather small and loosely connected pro-choice movement in Canada has suddenly been given a huge boost of energy, almost unseen since the days of Dr. Henry Morgentaler's battles to legalize abortion in the 1970's and 1980's.

I'm glad the CBC chose to greatly downplay the whole thing on TV. Using national primetime to highlight a meaningless and trivial popularity contest with an anti-choice victory is inappropriate for Canada. The "Abolish abortion" wish was anti-human rights and reactionary, and far from representative of the country or the citizenry's wishes for Canada. I think the CBC made the right decision in the end, even though I'm still rolling my eyes over the whole sorry escapade.

Repeal All Abortion Restrictions

2007-06-05T07:32:00.000-07:00

No country needs to regulate abortion via criminal or civil law. All anti-abortion laws and restrictions, throughout the world, should be repealed as unconstitutional violations of women’s rights and equality.

Anti-abortion laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity, impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals. All abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women’s reproductive healthcare.

Laws against abortion do nothing to stop abortion.

Every year, about 19 million desperate women seek out illegal abortions, because the countries they live in have banned safe abortion. 68,000 women die every year as a result, and at least five million suffer serious injury or permanent disability.

Countries with strict abortion bans (mostly in the developing world) usually allow an exception to save the woman’s life. Ironically, such bans result in many times more maternal deaths than in countries with more liberal abortion laws. The hypocrisy of laws that pretend to save women’s lives, but which actually slaughter them by the thousands, demands their immediate repeal.

Anti-abortion laws have nothing to do with good healthcare.

Abortion laws around the world vary wildly. While some countries ban abortion totally, others have few or no laws, and many enforce statutes regulating various aspects of the abortion decision and procedure. Such laws are generally not required for any other medical treatment. Examples include mandatory waiting periods, parental consent laws, obligatory counseling, early gestational limits, and other restrictions. Differing legal frameworks also lead to “abortion tourism,” forcing women to travel out-of-country to obtain the care they need, and discriminating against women without the resources to travel.

The sheer diversity of legal situations around the world is proof that abortion laws have nothing to do with quality healthcare, and instead are politically-motivated. Abortion laws are unrelated to women’s real medical needs and concerns, and divorced from the best practices of medical professionals. They are simply holdovers from the days of criminal abortion, or recent products of religious ideology.

In practice, many abortion restrictions impede good medical care, such as delaying treatment unnecessarily and providing false information to patients. This increases the medical risks of abortion and causes psychological and physical distress to women. Also, when abortion is illegal or restricted, it blocks or hampers medical research that's needed to improve abortion care and protect women’s health.

Abortion laws are frequently hollow anyway, because it’s assumed they reduce abortion when they don’t. For example, abortions in the third trimester are very rare and done only in dire circumstances, so passing a law that prohibits late abortions except for health reasons is pointless, as well as insulting to women and doctors. The natural limiting factors for third trimester abortions are the very low demand for them, and the miniscule number of doctors willing and trained to do them.

Anti-abortion laws hurt healthcare professionals.

Anti-abortion laws punish healthcare providers and further reduce access to abortion by:

• marginalizing abortion care and abortion providers outside the mainstream healthcare system
• shifting the focus away from basic healthcare to legal issues
• turning abortion into a political target for legislators and extremists
• disrespecting professional medical judgments made in the patient’s best interests
• interfering in the confidential doctor/patient relationship
• threatening health workers with prosecution

The imposition of anti-abortion laws says, in effect, that legislators can make better medical decisions than doctors. No other medical procedure carries with it the threat of criminal punishment — abortion is singled out for special treatment. But physicians should never work under the shadow of prosecution simply for providing medical care.

Anti-abortion laws institutionalize the stigma of abortion. Laws imply that abortion must be restricted because it is wrong and bad, and people who need or perform abortions are also wrong and bad. But no law will change the fact that a woman desperately needs an abortion, and a doctor wants to help her. As a result, abortion restrictions foster hypocrisy and disrespect for the law because they often force providers to interpret laws loosely, skirt them, or even disobey them.

Anti-abortion laws violate women’s equality.

Women are different than men because of their capacity to bear children. Child-bearing has a much more profound effect on women's lives, than for men. To truly achieve equality with men, women must not be disadvantaged under the law because of pregnancy. There should be no laws regulating pregnancy in any way, because that puts a special obligation on women that is not placed on men. For example, a law that requires women to pay for abortions, but not childbirth costs, is discriminatory.

It’s the uniquely important role of courts to uphold peoples’ constitutional rights by striking down laws that infringe on those rights. Since any restriction on abortion unacceptably limits women’s rights, abortion restrictions can (theoretically) be struck down in a constitutional democracy that protects women’s equality. Likewise, abortion rights should never be subject to a vote by the electorate, and anti-choice laws should never be enacted based on public referendums. That's because we cannot trust citizens to fairly protect the constitutional rights of minorities and disadvantaged groups. In the case of abortion, social opinions are often rooted in stereotypical assumptions about women’s “proper” role as child-bearers, and in religious beliefs about the value of fetal life, at the expense of pregnant women’s lives.

Canada is the only democratic country in the world that has no abortion law or restrictions of any kind, and it has proven that such laws are completely unnecessary. [link goes to expanded version of this article describing Canada's experience] Current abortion care reflects what most Canadians are comfortable with, and women and doctors act in a timely and responsible manner, without regulations. Women’s equality is guaranteed under Canada’s constitution, and it's considered unlikely that any anti-abortion law would withstand a constitutional challenge in Canada today. The courts there have consistently protected women’s right to abortion since 1988, when the old abortion law was struck down by Canada's Supreme Court as violating women’s constitutional rights to “life, liberty, and security of the person,” and “freedom of conscience.”

Even in national constitutions lacking an explicit guarantee of equality for women, there are usually other clauses that will support the repeal of abortion laws. For example, the 14th Amendment in the American constitution says no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause, and similar clauses in other national constitutions, should require the repeal of abortion laws because they unfairly apply only to women.

Anti-abortion laws hurt and devalue women.

Besides violating women’s equality rights, anti-abortion laws also hurt women by:

• affecting disadvantaged women the most, such as the poor, young, immigrant, and uneducated
• turning women into criminals, or state-controlled baby-making machines
• fostering prejudice against women who need one
• rejecting women's moral reasoning
• distrusting women to make their own decisions about their lives
• protecting fetuses instead of pregnant women
• punishing women for having sex for pleasure
• punishing women for “shirking” motherhood

Abortion restrictions are meant to reduce the incidence of abortion, but instead, they put cruel obstacles in front of a woman. The just and sensible way to reduce abortion is to make contraception universally accessible, teach responsible sex education, and give people positive incentives to raise kids, such as financial bonuses and family support programs.

The state has no legitimate interest in protecting the fetus at any stage, except to provide social and medical resources to pregnant women to ensure good outcomes for their pregnancies. And a good outcome can be an abortion. Pregnant women are in the best position to take care of their fetuses, so we should trust women to make decisions on behalf of their fetuses, not the state.

Anti-abortion laws are rooted in patriarchy and religious tradition.

The following patriarchal myths are the root cause of all abortion restrictions, and form the basis of the anti-abortion viewpoint. The main anti-abortion goal is not to "save babies," it's to keep women in their traditional roles.

• Motherhood is a woman’s highest calling.
• All women should be (and want to be) mothers.
• Women should endure the discomfort and pain of pregnancy and childbirth as their natural duty.
• Women should sacrifice themselves to raise kids.
• Women who have abortions are “bad” or “victims.”
• Women who have abortions suffer psychologically (at least they should).
• Women are irresponsible or too emotional, and need direction and guidance.
• To “protect” women, we must restrict abortion.

Laws against abortion also rely on tradition, for example:

• Pro-natalism — societies have a preference for birth over abortion.
• The right to have babies is unquestioned and unrestricted, but abortion is frowned upon.
• Children are treated like possessions of parents, instead of individuals with rights.
• The Church, God, and Bible are anti-abortion.

This traditional thinking no longer works for our modern society with its focus on human rights. Why should we favour birth over abortion when we live in an overpopulated world; when society will never reach agreement on the moral status of the fetus; when we know that unwilling mothers and unwanted children tend to suffer; and when becoming a parent should be the private decision of the woman and her family? Many people may not be ready or able to provide properly for a child. But children have rights, and they deserve respect, love, and the best chance at a good life. Of course, the right to have a child is fundamental and should not be restricted, but abortion is also a fundamental right on an equal basis.

Churches and religious doctrines should never dictate how we live our lives in a secular society with secular laws. Besides, the Bible is pro-choice. Several passages say it is better to die in the womb than live an unhappy or wicked life.

How to repeal anti-abortion laws.

Here’s some suggested solutions to get rid of harmful anti-abortion restrictions:

• Guarantee women’s equality in countries’ constitutions.
• Collect evidence of laws’ harms, find plaintiffs, and challenge laws in court.
• Lobby government against abortion restrictions (meet with legislators, submit briefs).
• Educate media, government, health professionals, and public about the harm and futility of abortion restrictions.
• Challenge the religious basis of anti-abortion laws, and keep church and state separate.
• Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.
• Empower women in society by changing public policies.
• Change patriarchal attitudes about women and motherhood through advocacy and education.
• Prioritize childcare and child-rearing as a universal concern, not a “woman’s issue.”

Some of these proposed solutions are obviously very difficult and would take many years. But one has to start somewhere. Because no country needs laws against abortion. We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that’s all we need to regulate the process.

What God Wants: Theological Atheism

2007-05-31T06:40:00.000-07:00

Theological atheism: The belief that God exists, but he does not want us to believe in him.

God created evidence to prove that the universe, earth, and life came into existence and developed slowly by natural processes, without any apparent divine intervention. He left this evidence everywhere for us to discover — in the rocks, in fossils, in the DNA of all living things, and in outer space. Since God chose to hide his divine creative powers by using only natural processes that make him redundant, we can conclude he wants to remain invisible and not be acknowledged or worshipped.

(Note: The common definition of atheism is "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God." At its root, however, atheism literally means "without God." Therefore, if you reject God from your life while still accepting that he exists, you could be called a theological atheist.)

Why Religious People Should Adopt Theological Atheism

Every practicing believer needs to know what God wants — it's the most fundamental question to be answered if the believer wants to live as God wishes.

According to theological atheism, God doesn't want us to believe in him. He created the world — and us — in a way that deliberately excludes any proof that he had a hand in it. For example, he used evolution as a tool to make himself undetectable. Now that we have attained enough wisdom and knowledge, God wants to retreat from the limelight we've forced him into during most of our ignorant past. It would be wrong, presumptuous, and illogical to continue active belief in him. We should respect God's wishes and act like he doesn't exist. We should become theological atheists.

Theological atheism is ideal for those who want to believe in God, but who have difficulty with the religious baggage associated with it, like having to go to church, pray, obey the Bible, and generally please God. All of that is unnecessary. Theological atheism leaves you free to live your own life on your own terms, without guilt — but also without the bleakness many people associate with rejection of God and all things spiritual. As a theological atheist, you can have it all — the comfort of secretly knowing that God exists, belief in an afterlife if you want, and the confidence that you're doing exactly what God wants by living without him.

All religious people can adopt theological atheism — from "deists" who believe in an impersonal creative force that set off the Big Bang 15 billion years ago but has done nothing since — to Catholics who accept the findings of science but also believe God interacts with the world — to believers in "scientific creationism," who claim that God made the world in six days about 10,000 years ago.

Ironically, scientific creationists are especially justified in adopting theological atheism. These people use (and abuse) the tools of science to try and show that the Biblical Genesis story is factual. Although they generally believe in a young earth - only 10,000 years old - they also respect scientific evidence that the earth is much older. To explain the contradiction, they've invented an "Appearance of Age" hypothesis. That is, God purposely created the universe and the earth as if they evolved over billions of years. For example, God created Adam and Eve fully grown but complete with misleading belly buttons, and he created light already enroute to us to make it look like it's been traveling for 15 billion years.

Let's allow a scientific creationist, Don Stewart (Blue Letter Bible, Frequently Asked Questions), to explain this for us:

This theory recognizes that God created Adam with the appearance of age. When Adam was thirty seconds old he looked like a full-grown adult. He did not have to grow up or learn a language—he was created fully mature.

If God made the remainder of the universe along this same line, then the actual age would not be the same as the age that things appear to be. Trees would have been created fully mature, animals did not have to grow up, and the stars were already shining in the sky. If this is the case, then the universe could look millions or billions of years old but actually be relatively young. Therefore, there is no conflict between the Bible and science because God made the universe to look old when He created it a relatively short time ago.

(Ironically, under this theory it doesn't matter whether God actually created the universe 15 billion years ago, ten thousand years ago, or one second ago. The past and all evidence for it are created all at once, so God could have done it any time.)

Stewart goes on to say that this does not make God a "deceiver", because "there is no deception on God's part if He created everything fully mature and then revealed that fact to humanity." What Stewart means is that God revealed the old earth through scientific evidence, a clear admittance by creationists that there is no evidence for a young earth or a sudden creation of life.

Stewart fails to mention that humanity only found out about our old, evolving earth about 200 years ago. Up until then, we had to take God's Biblical word for it that the earth was created all at once not too long ago. But if God created an appearance of age, why didn't he just say so in Genesis? It wasn't even God who finally told us about the old earth. We had to find out the hard way all by ourselves, with our scientific methods and tools. So why didn't God want us to find out about the old earth and the evolution of life? Perhaps he preferred to bask in the glory of being the master creator of everything in one fell swoop. Maybe God doesn't really like science, because it makes people question his word, his abilities, his very existence.

But this line of reasoning makes God seem not only deceptive, but selfish and egotistical. Surely that can't reflect the real God, who in reality is good, wise, and all-knowing. God has always known we were going to figure things out — it was part of his grand plan. He made us naturally curious so we would develop the scientific method and use it to find out the truth. Remember that God purposely planted evidence showing that everything evolved slowly by natural processes, without his intervention. He must have wisely decided we should discover this evidence for ourselves, when we were ready to understand and accept it. Now that we've reached this state, God no longer expects us to believe everything happened by sudden divine fiat 10,000 years ago, a second ago, or even 15 billion years ago.

God could never be a deceiver because he's a perfect moral being — even humble. He just prefers to be invisible, and evolution was his way of achieving that. He himself had to slowly evolve towards invisibility, in step with our own ability to comprehend his true nature. Now that we know better, we should respect what God wants — ignore his existence and live without him. We should adopt theological atheism.

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist writing tongue-in-cheek – however, I believe the world would be better off if religious people actually followed this advice.

Sexualizing girls and women

2007-03-31T12:12:00.000-07:00

Yes, it can be bad,
but let's not forget that women are sexual beings

Modern culture heavily promotes the sexualization of young women and girls, and that’s harmful to their self-esteem and healthy development, according to a recent study by the American Psychological Association (Report on the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls). The APA defines sexualization as “occurring when a person’s value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another’s sexual use.”

As one who strongly believes that women should be able to confidently assert their sexuality and enjoy sex as much as the next guy—without having to suffer social condemnation for it—this can be a challenging and even confusing issue. I can’t really argue with the APA’s general conclusion that sexualization—as they define it—is harmful to girls. The biggest crime in my view is that women's intelligence and abilities are perceived as less important, or even irrelevant, compared to their sexuality.

The sexualization of girls and women appears to be closely tied to fashion and physical appearance. The extremes of fashion can have the effect of restricting women's freedom, or sexualizing them too much. In Jack Holland’s book "Misogyny: the World’s Oldest Prejudice," which I recently reviewed, the author pointed out that when men and women dress quite differently, it generally indicates a sexist society. Typically, the more extreme the difference—as in the days of the corset during Victorian times—the more patriarchal the society.

On one level, it’s an issue of social conformity. Women (and men) want to identify and fit in with their peers, and dress and appearance is a typical way to do that. This seems to become less important as people get older, so it's partly an affliction of youth. For example, I enjoy wearing miniskirts and trying to look sexy, but I feel mature and confident enough to handle it. It’s easy for me because I know I’ve got lots more going for me. But it's quite different for girls and young women, because they're still trying to establish their self-identities and self-esteem. They may be more prone to internalizing these messages and making them self-reinforcing, to the detriment of developing their talents and brains.

So how do we encourage sexual independence in young women, while also making sure we encourage them to develop their intellect and abilities? Perhaps more importantly, how can we change the culture to reduce the sexualization of young women to reasonable levels? I say “reasonable levels” because, as I'll explain shortly, I believe that sexualizing young women is natural to some extent, and not necessarily destructive.

Young girls are a different matter. I see an important distinction between the sexualization of young women versus minor girls. The latter are children and as such, are rarely mature enough to understand or appropriately act on their sexuality. The sexualization of young girls by the media could rightly be seen as the sexual abuse of minors. So the following commentary pertains to young women, not minors.

First, can we figure out why society has a compulsion to sexualize young women, and why women so often buy into it themselves? Ultimately, I believe there’s some biological basis to it. The animal kingdom is full of examples of gender differences in sexual display. In many species, the male is often the "pretty" one—male birds exhibit brilliant plumage and male elks sport magnificent antlers, for example. The purpose of such otherwise useless attributes is to attract mates. “Sexual selection” is considered a powerful engine of evolution, in which males tend to select females with certain characteristics, and women do the same with men. The idea is to pick sexual partners who look the healthiest and most “fit” so you can increase your chances of reproducing successfully.

Studies have shown that men and women have many overlapping, but some very different criteria, when it comes to selecting a preferred mate. The key differences are that men tend to prefer a physically attractive and younger partner, while women tend to prefer older men with resources. Men also tend to seek out more sexual partners and have lower standards for choosing them, at least when looking for “short-term” mates. But women tend to be more selective about who they sleep with. The reasons for this, according to sociobiological theory, are that men are motivated to maximize their reproductive potential by impregnating as many women as possible, while women have to consider the serious consequences of sex—pregnancy and child-rearing. Therefore, women search for reliable men who will stick around and help with the kids.

But men have a dilemma when it comes to establishing male paternity. Unlike women, men can’t be certain that their children are really theirs. Patriarchy evolved as the solution—its primary feature being the control of women’s sexual behaviour. I have argued that the male need to establish paternity is largely responsible for women’s oppression, and also sheds light on the controversial nature of prostitution, abortion, and rape.

How does patriarchy and the male paternity theory relate to the sexualization of women in modern society? It's important to display our physical “sexiness” to attract the opposite sex, so that the most "fit" individuals will successfully reproduce. And those who are most attractive are those who are young, healthy, and fit. Near-universal perceptions of physical attractiveness include youth, facial symmetry, clear healthy skin, a reasonable Body Mass Index, a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 or less in women, tall height in men, and smaller size in women.

However, I suggest that it’s more important for women to be physically attractive than it is for men, simply because women contribute far more to children's development through pregnancy and child-rearing. The more attractive the woman, the “better” children she’ll produce, according to male instincts. In patriarchy therefore, the display of women's sexual attractiveness is for the benefit of men, to help them choose a healthy partner. It was never meant as a way for women to express and enjoy their own sexuality. Ideally, patriarchy requires women's sexual display to be passive, without them initiating or having sex to please themselves. That would be too dangerous, because it jeopardizes men's need to guarantee the paternity of their children.

This explains why society focuses on sexualizing young women, because youth is the most enviable, attractive state there is, therefore it's the "healthiest." Of course, women themselves are not exempt from biology, and most women sincerely do enjoy making themselves attractive to men. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. However, the biological tendency to sexualize women becomes neurotic when society goes overboard with it, especially by sexualizing very young girls. Neuroticism could be defined as what happens when natural tendencies are over-exaggerated to unhealthy levels. For example, patriarchy itself, with its paranoid need to control male paternity, is itself neurotic because it tends to oppress women to ridiculous extremes, such as allowing women out of their homes only if chaperoned and covered head to toe in a tarp.

Have you ever wondered about the seeming contradiction between western society’s pre-occupation with displaying sexy women, versus the sexual double standard that says women shouldn’t really act on their sexuality? This makes sense in light of sexual selection and the male paternity theory. It’s good for young women to look sexy, and also good when women are mothers, but a "sexy mother" for example, is inappropriate and irresponsible because she can't be trusted with paternity of her children. In other words, women's proper role is to look sexy in order to attract a stable mate, but once that happens, she should become a good mother and stop being sexy, at least to the outside world. (Note that in societies where women are hidden under veils and burkas, arranged marriages take the place of sexual selection.)

A culture that promotes an extreme sexualization of women, while at the same time condemning "sluts and whores,” is a culture still under the sway of that age-old patriarchal fear and fascination with women—also known as the Madonna/Whore syndrome. Women can be sexy, or they can be mothers, but there's no inbetween. This makes men feel conflicted about women, and a lot of women tend to absorb those messages too, unfortunately.

But do our media messages accurately reflect what people really think? Perhaps there’s quite a gap. For example, I don't think the average man is "demanding" the over-sexualization of women. Most men seem to prefer women who are intelligent and confident—even saying these qualities are what make a woman sexy (unless that only applies to men over 30!). Even the hand-wringing media coverage of the sexualization of young women reflects a questionable assumption—that women who sexualize themselves are turning themselves into passive victims, rather than deliberately using it as a way to confidently assert, express, and celebrate their own sexuality. Women do not become slaves to sexualization, after all. Large numbers of young women do not dress like vamps, and those that do, don’t necessarily do it all the time—only when they want to exercise their sexual power. Further, if we actually asked provocatively-dressed young women if they see themselves as sexually exploited objects suffering from low self-esteem, most would probably protest “Absolutely not!” So why can’t we just take their word for it, instead of assuming they’re hapless victims who don’t know their own minds? We too often overlook that women and girls are sexual beings with their own urges and desires. Patriarchy has a long history of ignoring women’s pleasure and women’s opinions, and modern society still doesn’t place much trust in women’s moral autonomy—especially when it comes to sex.

The APA’s definition of sexualization might, therefore, be contaminated with society’s assumptions and judgments about women, rather than reflect how women see themselves. For example, the APA researchers cite studies showing that girls and women “self-objectify” themselves more than boys or men do. This is seen as a problem because the researchers assume that sexual objectification is a bad thing, especially for women. I would argue that being a sex object now and then is a perfectly natural and exciting activity for both men and women. But also, if women have a biological tendency to display themselves sexually in order to entice men to choose them, then it’s perfectly normal for women to objectify themselves more than men do. Instead of lamenting that this leads women to base their self-worth on how others perceive them (a common practice in both genders, by the way), maybe we should just accept without judgment that most women actively choose to sexually objectify themselves at least sometimes, and can derive considerable pleasure from doing so.

Many of the APA’s findings and conclusions follow a similar path. The researchers recognize that girls and women participate in and contribute to their own sexualization. However, they systematically deny the moral agency of girls and women through such meaningless findings as: “Thus, girls’ choices are not fully independent of cultural or past interpersonal influences.” Well, whose choices are?!

It’s true that many young women have not yet developed the maturity and confidence that would make their “self-sexualization” a truly informed or responsible choice. But we all know about the inherent immaturity and rashness of youth. What difference is there, really, between a young woman attracting lewd attention by wearing a micro-mini skirt and no panties, and a young man speeding down the road in his car while guzzling beer? We might agree that neither behaviour is wise, but we can also appreciate that both young women and men will grow out of it as they mature. If we can allow young men to sow their wild oats and take risks, why not young women too?

The real crime in sexualizing young women is not necessarily the sexualization per se, but the fact that women’s intellect and abilities are ignored or trivialized in the process. Because if the APA’s conclusion is true—that the sexualization of girls is linked to common mental health problems in girls and women—it may be due more to the negation of their other attributes, and the sheer over-emphasis on their sexuality. Further, women’s sexuality tends to be viewed negatively by society—in the sense that it’s considered “dangerous” or “dirty” (a legacy of our puritan Christian heritage). Another negative aspect to sexualization is that society has a narrow ideal of women’s sexual attractiveness. Women may feel inadequate or dissatisfied when they don’t meet society’s unrealistic criteria of beauty, and this can lead to consequences like eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression.

So let’s return to my earlier question: how can we encourage the sexual independence of young women, while also encouraging them to develop their intelligence and competence? A related question is: how can society learn to truly respect all three of these attributes of women? The answers to these questions are inextricably linked. If society starts treating women’s brains and abilities with more respect, minor girls would not be subjected to the media’s over-sexualization of women and girls, and women in general would not be held to impossible standards of beauty, or to the sexual double standard.

The APA researchers offer several detailed recommendations to combat the sexualization of girls, which involve more comprehensive research, more tools and training for psychologists, public funding and public programs, and raising public awareness. Most of these measures would certainly help address the problem. The key issue, however, may be the assumptions behind the content of these recommendations. Instead of just blindly trying to stamp out the sexualization of women, we need to ensure that women’s own sexual agency is respected, even when they choose to “sexually objectify” themselves. Because maybe that’s just part of the wonderful, messy complexity of normal human behaviour.

Consensus on Abortion?

2007-03-26T08:30:00.000-07:00

A Pro-Choice “Extremist” Critiques the Global Search for Consensus on Abortion

Review of: The Human Drama of Abortion: A Global Search for Consensus
By Aníbal Faúndes and José S. Barzelatto, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, 2006. 200 pp.

Written by two distinguished doctors from Chile, this book is an important contribution to the abortion debate, but not without its flaws. Having witnessed the horrors of illegal, unsafe abortion in their own countries, the authors make a compelling pro-choice case. Their recounting of the facts about illegal and unsafe abortion around the world clearly demonstrates the tragic (and unnecessary) human, social, and economic costs of unsafe abortion.

The authors summarize the main causes of unwanted pregnancies as follows: women’s lack of power over their sexual activity; women’s lack of education, including inadequate and inaccurate knowledge of contraceptive methods; limited access to effective contraception; and the absence of social support for pregnant women and their children (pg. 124). The most common reasons for abortion, which the authors state are “fairly constant worldwide” are: absence of the father, financial constraints, inability to provide good parenting, interference with life prospects, conflict with prevailing social norms related to sex and marriage, health concerns, and lack of social support (pg. 55).

Of most interest are the authors’ proposed solutions for ending the abortion carnage, and for seeking a consensus within the abortion debate. Some idealism and faulty assumptions undermine the authors’ assessment, but their conclusions are thoughtful and still have value. They believe it’s possible to reach an “overlapping consensus” on abortion, by having a dialogue to identify common values and positions, and understand the roots of any differences (pg. 164). Although the authors seem aware that differences between the pro-choice and anti-choice positions reflect two irreconcilable world views, I do not feel they convincingly address this fundamental schism in a way that would really make a difference in reducing unsafe abortion.

The authors recognize that one of the most important ways to prevent unsafe abortion is to reduce the need for abortion in the first place. Both legal and moral prohibition have failed miserably, both throughout history and throughout the world today. The authors’ sensible prescriptions—already tried and true—are to prevent unwanted pregnancies by making contraception more accessible, empowering women, and providing better social support for mothers to raise their kids. Their suggestions to help reduce unsafe abortion include improving women’s status in society, decriminalizing abortion, and improving access to legal abortion.

But most of those in opposition to legal abortion are adamantly against the very things that would most effectively reduce unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions. This opposition is largely religiously-based and intransigent. The Catholic Church and other fundamentalist religious groups are the key players, especially where the toll of illegal and unsafe abortion is highest—Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. The authors do concede all this, but fail to adequately address how to overcome it. Instead, the authors cite a document called the "Genval Consensus" as religion’s next best hope for solving the problem of unsafe abortion. This United Nations report summarizes a meeting between theologians and scholars in 1994 in Belgium. The report's thoughtful conclusion was:

“Decriminalization of abortion, therefore, is a minimal response to this reality [danger of unsafe abortion] and a reasonable means of protecting the life and health of women at risk. … The view of any particular religious tradition should not be imposed on others.” (pg. 94)

These are very good and noble sentiments, but unfortunately, they were spoken from an academic ivory tower. Most of those who oppose abortion on religious grounds are highly conservative and will brook no compromise on the matter. They simply will not tolerate legal abortion, or the full emancipation of women. And all too often, they are eager to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world, or at least on all citizens of countries where they dominate. For proof, one need only look to the persistent existence of anti-abortion laws in Africa and Latin America, and the strident activism of anti-choice forces everywhere who protect or implement such laws. Yet Faúndes and Barzelatto calls the Genval Consensus the “mainstream of current religious thought” indicating that a “dialogue among religions that will identify common purposes is possible.” Yes, among liberals, of course! But liberal religious beliefs have never been the problem—it’s fundamentalism that is the intractable foe of women’s equality and safe abortion access.

An even deeper cause of opposition to abortion is patriarchy. The majority of modern cultures still want to cast women into a childbearing role, and keep women in an inferior position, socially and politically. This explains why religious groups are against contraception, the empowerment of women, and even better social support for mothers. One might think that motherhood would be highly valued and strongly supported by those opposed to legal abortion, but such is generally not the case. In a patriarchal society, women and children apparently do not “need” any direct social support, because it’s the sole responsibility of husbands and fathers to take care of them (and their prerogative not to). Faúndes and Barzelatto point to research in developing countries that shows the model of gender dominance can be shifted through educational programs that target males during childhood and adolescence (pg. 131). This is a hopeful sign that patriarchy is not necessarily inevitable, if society is willing to make a concerted effort to counteract it. In the meantime however, much of the world is still strongly patriarchal. This begs the question of how realistic it is to hope for significant improvement in abortion access through an “overlapping consensus.”

A theme that often crops up in the book is the disconnect between the public condemnation of abortion, and the private acceptance of abortion when it impacts one’s own life, or when it suits one’s political purposes. Both Faúndes and Barzelatto have stories to illustrate this. Barzelatto, representing the World Health Organization, once had a meeting with a high official in the Ministry of Health in a Muslim country. The official began the meeting with a 20-minute lecture on the evils of induced abortion, even though the meeting had nothing to do with abortion. At the end of this diatribe, the official asked Barzelatto if WHO could help his country expand a national program on menstrual regulation, which is actually a type of early abortion. Barzelatto realized it had been “politically and religiously mandatory for my host to separate menstrual regulation from later abortion, and it was equally clear that his government would never accept any similarity between the two procedures.” (pg. 12-13). Faúndes’ story is about a physician colleague, a strict, anti-abortion Catholic who often spoke publicly on the evils of abortion and how it could never be justified under any circumstances. One night Faúndes received a phone call from this colleague, who requested an abortion for his 15-year old daughter. The colleague said she had been gang-raped at a party, and needed the abortion because otherwise “she would have no future, no hope of a ‘normal’ family, no chance of happiness.” Since his daughter’s period was only two weeks late, and the circumstances extreme, the colleague believed an early abortion to be completely justified (pg 69). (Faúndes helped arrange it, of course.)

I’ve written myself about the not-uncommon phenomenon of anti-choice women having abortions. In terms of Faúndes’ and Barzelatto’s book however, what’s most intriguing about this disconnect is that the authors themselves fall prey to it, although much less so than the average anti-choice hypocrite. This really serves to demonstrate just how deep the ambivalence and unease to abortion actually runs.

Faúndes describes being a medical intern in the 1950’s in Chile, when the prevailing culture in medicine was to treat women who had abortions as criminals. He says:

“Women had to pay for yielding to the pleasures of sex without assuming the responsibility of motherhood. The presumption was that (1) she had wanted to have sex, (2) she had enjoyed it, (3) she had not prevented the pregnancy because she was irresponsible, and (4) her reasons for not wanting to continue the pregnancy were selfish. At first I bought into this line of thought, but as I began to listen to the women’s stories, it became increasingly clear that in almost every case, some or all of the four presumptions listed above were incorrect. My initial condemnation of these women shifted to understanding and compassion.” (pg. 63)

In a few spots in the book, the authors point out that the majority of people in the world believe that abortion is “morally justified under certain circumstances” and should be “legally allowed under certain circumstances.” In the end, they too adopt this framework, even though Faúndes himself admitted that “in almost every case,” the moral presumptions about why women have abortions are wrong, which he says led him to a position of understanding and compassion.

But the understanding and compassion in the statement “abortion is morally justified under certain circumstances” is highly limited and qualified. Whose morals are we talking about, and who gets to decide whether they are justified? The statement actually puts us squarely into the anti-choice camp. We can’t trust women to make a morally justified decision, so someone else has to decide for them. Accordingly, Faúndes and Barzelatto assert that a consensus on abortion should have the following “ethical basis”: Women can have abortions on request until the 12th week of pregnancy. Between 12 and 22 weeks, a “strong justification” is needed, which would depend on the circumstances and the local culture, but would include at least a risk to the woman’s life, very severe fetal malformation, and pregnancy as a result of rape or incest. After 22 weeks, abortion should only be permitted if the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman, or in cases of lethal fetal abnormalities where the fetus cannot survive after birth (pg. 109).

Underlying the statement that “abortion is morally justified under certain circumstances” are several unquestioned assumptions on the part of the authors. First, they sometimes speak of the “rights of the fetus” – as if fetuses have rights, or at least should have rights. But at no time do the authors present any evidence for such a thing. Instead, they simply presume that fetal rights exist as a valid competing claim against the woman’s rights, especially after viability. I have argued (in my article “The Fetus Focus Fallacy”) that whatever the fetus might be, and whatever its moral status, are completely subjective issues that are irrelevant to the abortion debate. Many people care a lot about fetuses, but others don’t place much importance on them. The wide varety of personal opinion on the value of fetuses—ranging from "just a clump of cells" to a "full human being"—means that it's impossible to arrive at any true (or just) social consensus on the status of the fetus. I would argue that the more we value fetuses, the more we ignore or downgrade the rights of women. Placing value on fetuses simply masks our distrust and disrespect for women—as explained in my article "Let No Fetus Defeat Us!"

The only person who can rightfully make a determination of fetal value is the pregnant woman herself (if she wants to). In an egalitarian society where women are truly empowered, women would be trusted to act responsibly on behalf of their fetuses, whether that means having an abortion or getting pre-natal care. There would be no compulsion to second-guess women, or treat them like amoral children in need of protection from themselves.

Further, concerns around fetal viability are a red herring. If we can trust women and their doctors to make pregnancy decisions before viability, why should that change after viability? Is that the point at which legislators suddenly become more knowledgeable and skilled in medicine than doctors? Or is it because all pregnant women lose control of their senses after the 22nd week of pregnancy? In fact, post-viability abortions are rare because they are only needed in the most extreme or desperate circumstances. That makes legal restrictions on late abortion wrong and counter-productive. Not only do they obstruct access to critical medical care for the most vulnerable women, they put an official stamp of moral disapproval on those women and the doctors who help them. If a woman wants or needs an abortion after 22 weeks, and her doctor agrees, then it’s nobody’s business but theirs.

This conclusion might be unsettling to some, which brings me to another unquestioned assumption on the part of the authors. Although Faúndes has found that women have understandable reasons for abortion “in almost every case,” he believes that only “certain” abortions are morally justified. Setting aside this puzzling contradiction, let’s look at the women who request abortion for supposedly “morally unjustified” reasons. What would these reasons be? Let’s keep in mind that they cannot be the reasons cited by the pregnant woman herself, to whom a requested abortion is always justified, by definition. Unfortunately, Faúndes and Barzelatto do not give us any clues about “morally unjustified” abortions. We must turn to anti-choice people to discover these reasons. Only they seem to know about the many women who have abortions “casually” for the sake of “convenience.” According to them, some women have abortions on impulse, stopping by the clinic on their way to the hairdresser. Teenage girls often get abortions so they’ll fit into their prom dress. Other women selfishly want to continue living their fun but shallow life, uninterrupted by dirty diapers. A few women even show up at abortion clinics totally guilt-free, even having the nerve to chat and laugh while relaxing casually in the waiting room. Most troubling of all perhaps, is that some women just don’t want to have children.

What’s wrong with these women, anyway? And are we right to believe that forced motherhood will cure their apparent neuroses and other evil inclinations?

Of course, I’m being facetious. Both the “casual” abortion and the “irresponsible, selfish” woman are the mythical creations of the anti-choice movement. These myths gain traction in society at large, because patriarchy says that women naturally want to be mothers and must be mothers, which makes women who have abortions “unnatural” or “immoral.” That’s why women who simply don’t want to have babies are lumped in with the “irresponsible, selfish” sort.

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose there are some irresponsible women having casual abortions for reasons we would all find morally reprehensible. I’m even willing to admit there might be a few of those—women aren’t perfect after all. But do we really think it’s appropriate for a teenage girl to have a baby when all she cares about is fitting into her prom dress? Do we really want a callous and shallow woman to be a mother of an innocent baby she doesn’t want and will probably abuse?

The deeper question is whether we have the right to morally judge any woman or her decision, regardless of our own gut feelings. Morals are a personal thing, and what seems right for one person might be anathema to the next. Besides, it's not illegal to be irresponsible and selfish, generally speaking, so how can we exercise a legal veto over such behaviour in pregnant women—let alone judge it? Doing so is the very definition of paternalism—the refusal to treat women as adults, including not letting them take responsibility for their own decisions and their own mistakes. Paternalism also lies behind the assumption that some abortions are not morally justified, because this implies it would be more moral to force women to have babies they don't want. No reasonable pro-choice person can agree with this.

For the sake of justice and compassion, we cannot judge pregnant women. Only they truly understand their circumstances and personal capacities. Only they are experiencing the pregnancy; only they must sacrifice their freedom and bodies for nine months to host and birth the baby, as well as the next 20 years of their lives to raise that child. It’s their bodies and their lives at stake—which is a cliché nowadays, but one that should never lose its powerful meaning. A pregnant woman has to live with the decision she makes, and the consequences of it. That’s why an abortion decision is nobody’s business but hers—regardless of her reasons, and regardless of the length of gestation.

The only factor that should legitimately limit access to abortion is the willingness and ability of the abortion provider. We often do a disservice to them as well. Doctors are professionally trained to deliver medical care and help their patients. If we can trust their medical discretion in other areas, there’s no reason not to trust their medical discretion when it comes to abortion. All doctors are subject to codes of ethics, and medical policies and regulations, such as providing informed consent to patients. Medical bodies already monitor doctors for possible unethical or criminal behaviour, so there’s no reason to single out abortion care. Abortion is a necessary medical treatment for women, and no required medical care should ever subject doctors to possible criminal prosecution. We do not need any legal restrictions at all on abortion, just like we don’t need them for doing appendectomies. In fact, the wide variety of abortion laws throughout the world is hard proof that such laws have nothing to do with the health of women; instead they are cultural and political products of religious patriarchy. As proven by Canada, the only democratic country in the world that has no laws against abortion, we can trust doctors and women to act responsibly without the need for any regulation.

A final unquestioned assumption on the part of the authors sorely needs to be addressed. In discussing the basis for an overlapping consensus on abortion, the authors state:

“The public debate has been dominated by two extreme views: one that maintains that women always have the right to decide the fate of the fetus as a part of their bodies and one that maintains that the rights of the fetus, from the time of fertilization, always override the rights of the pregnant woman. We believe that most people disagree with both of these two extremes and that there is a already a narrow but significant overlapping consensus with respect to abortion (1) Nobody likes the idea of having an abortion, or of other people having abortions, but virtually everyone agrees that abortion is morally justified under certain circumstances. (2) There are too many avoidable abortions. (3) Unsafe abortion is a major public health problem.” (pg. 166)

Well, I guess this makes me an “extremist.” The odd thing is, I don’t disagree with the overlapping consensus as stated here, except to add the caveat, that even if someone thinks a particular abortion is morally unjustified, that’s irrelevant, because there should be no legal restrictions on abortion anyway. I also don’t disagree with any of the nine points the authors subsequently list as a guide to the dialogue (pg.167-169). But I do question the authors’ stated commitment to “gender equity” and women’s right to “true control over their sexual lives” when they actually believe the abortion decision should be taken away from women after only 12 weeks of pregnancy (with no recognition that many women are unable to access early abortion services for reasons beyond their control).

What bothers me most about this passage, however, is the total lack of justification for using the word “extreme” when talking about a strong pro-choice view. In the abortion wars I’m familiar with, the extremists are the ones who bomb clinics and shoot doctors in the name of “pro-life.” Extremists are those who deny human rights and dignity for half the world’s population on the basis of biology. Extremists are those who don’t care when women die from unsafe abortion, because they label such women “murderers” who deserve their fate. Those are the extremists I know. On the other hand, those who advocate full equality and respect for women—backed up by evidence, logic, and ethical arguments—are not extremists by any stretch of the imagination. The use of the word "extreme" in this context is an insult, a dismissive caricature of the nuanced views of most pro-choice campaigners. The most “extreme” pro-choice people I know work in abortion clinics. They got that way by developing a profound respect, compassion, understanding, and trust for the women they serve. They put the woman first, making sure her needs are listened to and met, and by doing so, they’ve saved the lives of more fetuses than the protesters outside their doors ever will.

So, is it possible to reach an “overlapping consensus” on abortion? Maybe, if fundamentalist religion loses its sway in the world. There are many progressive and thoughtful people working hard to advance abortion rights and improve access, so there’s bound to be some successes, and hopefully steady progress in the years to come. Even though I’m an “extremist,” I appreciate that positive change must usually come in slow increments. For example, in a country with a strict abortion ban, an amendment that allows abortion in cases of rape or incest is a huge step forward, one that may serve to increase popular support for abortion rights in general. But we should always keep our eye on the prize. The solution advocated by Faúndes and Barzelatto is a compromise that doesn’t fully respect women’s autonomy, while pretending to. True justice demands nothing less than full equality for women, sexual and reproductive freedom for all, and the repeal of all abortion laws and restrictions.

Misogyny

2007-02-10T12:47:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on Jack Holland's "Misogyny"
and the links between misogyny, women's "right to choose," and rape

I just finished reading the book "Misogyny: the World's Oldest Prejudice" by Jack Holland. This is an excellent history of misogyny, and I highly recommend it. Even though it deals with very disturbing issues, it's not depressing to read. It's well-written and easy to follow, and the author's respect for women shines through. (Please note that my comments and excerpts below do not do justice to the book, and should not be taken as a comprehensive book review.)

One very peculiar thing about this book is that Holland does not mention anywhere the standard socio-biological theory that most of women's oppression can be traced to the male need to establish paternity of their children, as I explained in my article Why Prostitution Cannot be Abolished and also in my speech Patriarchy, Paternity, and Reproductive Rights.

This is quite an amazing oversight for a book on misogyny, especially since so much of what Holland talks about—the countless ways in which women have been oppressed and punished through history—are very clearly a direct result of men's inability to be certain that their children are really theirs. But otherwise, the book is a superb effort, and gave me many new insights to think about. Obviously, misogyny is a complicated thing to account for.

Holland says the prejudice of misogyny can be summed up in four words: "pervasive, persistent, pernicious, and protean." He traces the origin of patriarchy and women's oppression to early Greek and Middle-eastern cultures. Ancient myth depicts women as responsible for bringing life into the world, but also death—because once you're born, you're destined to die. He details the myth of Eve's temptation in the Garden of Eden, and Pandora opening Pandora's box, both of which brought death into the world. So, men fear women because of their power to bring life AND death. It's a strange mix of envy and contempt, or fascination and fear—reflected in that modern male lament: "Women! Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em!" Contempt for women arises because men want to feel they're sacred and immortal beings like gods, or at least autonomous beings on some kind of higher plane, but woman's physical nature—their child-bearing and sexual allure—remind men that they are "weak" biological beings subject to temptations of the flesh, and destined to live and die like animals. Since this is women's "fault" because they have a "baser" nature than men, it's necessary to punish, control, and oppress women.

Any system of dualism, according to Holland, tends to be very unkind to women—for example, the Platonic mind versus body doctrine, or the Marxist philosophy of the bourgeoisie versus the proletariat—because dualistic systems set up a battleground for two conflicting forces, and this usually fits right into a justification of misogyny. This can happen by either emphasizing the differences between men and women, effectively relegating women to their motherhood role, or by erasing the differences to the extent that women are denied their sexuality and motherhood roles altogether.

Women's Sexual Choice as a Threat to Patriarchy

Another aspect of Holland’s thesis fascinated me. His Chapter 8, Body Politics, focuses on reproductive rights and abortion, and how the anti-choice movement is the latest strong manifestation of misogyny. The closest Holland comes to a biological explanation of misogyny is this: In the animal kingdom, female primates experience oestrus and the males always know when the female is ready to have sex. But human females have lost that ability, and can have sex at any time. This puts men at a real disadvantage, because they can't actually tell when a woman is ready and willing, so men have to persuade women. Most importantly, this gives women the power to choose who they mate with, and when. As a result, men resent women for having that power, and they need to control women and their sexuality. It's worth quoting Holland in full here, he's quite eloquent, and this gives one a flavour of his writing style and his positive attitude towards women. He says:

"It's no coincidence that central to this revolution within human sexuality is choice. The suppression of the oestrus cycle frees human females from the element of compulsion, keeps males attentive to her, and allows her greater opportunity to pick and choose a mate. Ovulation has been crucial to evolution. Just as importantly, it makes possible a wide variety of relationships between women and men that go beyond the purely procreative, allowing the complex social interactions that are characteristic of all human cultures where the sexes can relate to each other at many different levels - as lovers, friends, companions, and work colleagues. It reminds us that women's right to choose is central not only to their own integrity, but to the very roots of what makes us human and distinguishes us from other primates. It is no wonder then that the expansion of the right to choose has throughout history been crucial for women. The right to choose her mate, and control the circumstances under which she would mate with him, marked an important stage in women's history. Now the battle for choice centres on her right to control her own fertility.”

“If choice is so central to women's evolution (and therefore to human evolution), then so too is her sexuality, and her right to display or emphasize it. It is one of the characteristics of cultures where misogyny is part of society's 'common sense' that they seek to suppress that right. In some cases, as with the Taliban in Afghanistan, it reached such levels of paranoia that anything associated with female sexual allure, such as lingerie, would inspire in them something akin to terror. This fear is usually associated with efforts to confine women's sexuality to its procreative role, so it is not surprising that mothers loom large in the minds of many misogynists. They have problems relating to a woman at any other level. Typically, of course, they disguise their opposition to women's sexual display patronizingly, in terms of 'protecting them' against exploitation by wicked chauvinists - both the Nazis and the Moslem fundamentalists followed their hoary tradition in the reasons they gave as they tried to suppress make-up and beauty parlours. But their actions and their obsessions reveal only their own inability to relate to sexually mature women." (pg 284-5)

This latter paragraph is particularly intriguing because it reminded me that that many feminists also fall into the trap of misogyny, when they try to deny women the right to feel beautiful and sexy, or even the right to enjoy sex (at least casual sex). Some feminists blame and criticize women for wearing make-up and sexy clothes, claiming this just buys into male exploitation of women's sexuality. Some even proudly talk about how they themselves wear nondescript, baggy clothes and no makeup so they won't be seen as "sexual objects" to men. Also, some feminists tend to denigrate motherhood and disrespect "traditional" women who want to bear and raise children. But as Holland notes, sexuality and motherhood are obviously very important parts of women's identity. Suppressing the expression of female beauty and sexuality actually results in the oppression of women. He points out that when women are given some freedom in a society, the first thing many women do is start wearing make-up, getting their hair done, and wearing pretty clothes. So when women do this, it's actually a sign that they are FREE, not oppressed. It's perfectly normal for women to want to be attractive to men. Men are the same of course; they just do it in different ways. And there is NO contradiction between a woman wanting to look beautiful and sexy, and also using her brain and talents and being respected for that.

Holland says: “A deep ambivalence towards women’s beauty remains in our own culture as part of our inheritance of the Judeo-Christian hostility towards the body,” mentioning that even early feminist Mary Wollstonecraft urged women to “resign the arbitrary power of beauty” or they would “prove they have less mind than man.” But Holland points out that the majority of women have always rejected the dichotomy between mind and body, and quotes psychologist Nancy Etcoff: “The solution cannot be to give up a realm of pleasure and power that has been with us since the beginning of time.” Here’s another insightful passage from Holland’s book in this regard. First he quotes Steven Pinker, who says in his book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature:

" 'There is in fact, no incompatibility between the principles of feminism and the possibility that men and women are not psychologically identical' writes Pinker. 'To repeat: equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of human beings are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.' [Holland says:] That is, if it were found that most women spend more time in beauty parlours than in the library reading Plato, that is not an argument for depriving them of the vote - no more so than it would be if it were proven that a majority of men prefer to watch football and drink beer than to solve geometrical problems." (pg 282)

Abortion and Rape

Holland makes a very revealing and useful analogy between abortion and rape, although I think there's a flaw in it. He talks about the doctrine of Pope John Paul II, who told "poor and illiterate women that to use a condom is the moral equivalent of murder and that each time they use contraceptives they render Christ's sacrifice on the cross 'in vain." The Pope said: "No personal or social circumstances have ever been able, or will be able, to rectify the moral wrong of the contraceptive act." Holland responds:

"Underlying this attitude is the assumption that when it comes to having a baby, a woman's consent is not necessary and that once made pregnant, accidentally or not, her own will is rendered irrelevant. The moral implications of this are interesting when compared with those governing our attitudes to rape. All civilized societies accept that a woman's consent is necessary in order to have intercourse with her. Not to seek that consent and to coerce her into intercourse is to commit rape, which is a serious crime. But yet according to the Church, in the vital matter of pregnancy, a woman's consent is beside the point. She can be made pregnant against her wishes, and without her consent. The inexorable law of God overrides her will and the fact that she is pregnant determines her fate. Her personal autonomy is denied her. To deny the need for her consent in this, the most important aspect of a woman's life, is surely the moral equivalent of justifying rape. It reminds us once more of the profound contempt that has underpinned Catholic attitudes towards women and that has been responsible for so much suffering down the centuries." (pg 242-3)

Now this is very good, but there's an important problem with it, because of Holland's failure to understand how the male need to establish paternity is the basis for the oppression of women. Although he's right that rape is considered a crime, it's only quite recently in history that it's become a crime against women. For example, marital rape has not been a crime for long in western countries, because it was a wife's duty to submit to her husband (and bear his children), so her consent to sex was irrelevant. Also, it was only in 1993 that the United Nations finally added rape to the list of "crimes against humanity" during war. According to patriarchy and the male paternity theory, rape is really a crime against men, not women. It's used as a way to dishonour and humiliate the enemy, because by raping women that "belong" to other men, rapists have violated the right to paternity of those other men.

Rape in general, whether during war or not, is also an expression of men's contempt and fear of women, a way to exert power and control over them—but also an opportunity for the rapist to father a child and thereby establish his right to paternity by out-competing other men. According to patriarchy, a woman's consent to sex OR pregnancy is irrelevant, because the overriding concern is that men need to reproduce and ensure it's their children being produced. That's why it's acceptable to rape your enemy's women, or even rape your own wife, but it's never OK for the enemy to rape your wife (or daughter). And that's why rape became a crime. The fact that rape victims are often treated with contempt and disgrace, sometimes even charged with adultery, or murdered or exiled by their own families, is further proof that women's consent (or lack of) is irrelevant. Because the rape is not considered a crime against the woman so much as it's a crime against family honour and the male assurance of paternity.

Going back to Holland's analogy, although it seems like there's a jarring difference between the Church's attitude towards abortion and rape, there actually isn't. The Church is against both rape and abortion, because in the patriarchal view, they both interfere with the male right to paternity, and they both violate the dignity of woman—except according to the Church, woman's "dignity" rests on her sacred role as the mother of children by her husband—not by a rapist or enemy solder.

Looking at abortion versus rape brings to mind a further corroboration of the theory that women’s oppression is based on the male need to establish paternity. Most people, including a large number of anti-choice people, agree to exceptions in abortion laws for rape and incest. But this actually doesn't make sense if all life is sacred and fetuses have a right to life. After all, a fetus that is the product of rape is just as "innocent" as any other and should have the same "rights". However, these exceptions fit exactly with the male paternity theory. That's because the product of rape or incest is itself a violation of "rightful" male paternity—therefore it's OK, even necessary, to get rid of it.

The sheer injustice and brutality fostered by misogyny continues unabated today in many parts of the world. The oldest prejudice in human history in so pervasive and entrenched that it's still seen as quite normal and ordinary—just "common sense" as Holland puts it. I only wish we could make "Misogyny" required reading for all policymakers, government leaders, and religious leaders.

Equating Sex with Women's Oppression?

2007-01-18T06:54:00.000-08:00

"What is liberation? Feminism past,present and future" by Gail Golden
http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2551)

Excerpt: "Important conversations are currently taking place about a confusing phenomenon regarding a specific group of contemporary women. These conversations relate to some young women today who embrace pornography, prostitution and the sexual objectification of women. Rejecting the feminist struggles of an earlier generation, these young women seek to advance this so called ’post feminist’ agenda. This paper seeks to enter the conversation in an effort to understand and respond to this supposed manifestation of a new kind of women’s liberation. We begin by addressing the question of whether we are actually in a post feminist age."

I found this article quite weak, frankly. It's based on biases about sex and sexuality. For example, it uses terms like "sexual objectification of women", "damaging impact of pornography" "male lust that degrades women and treats them with contempt" without explaining or justifying those terms - which are really just personal feelings not based in evidence. The article offensively portrays women who "join the raunch culture" as selfishly betraying feminism. The problems with the article are captured in this sentence from it: "In psychological terms, however, this post feminist tendency to objectify one's own body has aspects of the phenomenon known as identification with the aggressor."

In my opinion, this talk of "objectifying one's body" simply masks disapproval or distaste for sex, especially casual sex. Many people with healthy, strong sexualities accept that there is a time and place to be a "sexual object" - it's exciting and fun for both men and women. It's a common male fantasy to be a "sex object" to women, after all, and let's face it, women love it too, or they wouldn't enjoy wearing makeup and sexy clothes. This is all normal, and it's a normal part of sex, especially casual sex.

Linking "sexual objectification" with "identification with the aggressor" simply assumes that sex is inherently violent and that men are rapists by nature. That insults men and male sexuality, but it also narrowly defines women's sexuality, because it amounts to a dismissal of the validity of sexual pleasure for women without the presence of "love, respect, tenderness, and dignity."

The author is forced to admit that certain "privileged" women enjoy sex work and are not exploited by it, but this concession undermines her assumptions and conclusions. If even some women - and it's not a tiny minority by any means - can confidently handle being a sex worker, then that means sex work cannot be inherently exploitive. The very existence of such women points the way towards addressing the abuse and coercion that other women often experience within prostitution. In my view, this can be done by decriminalizing sex work, raising the status of women, and abolishing the sexual double standard that says women shouldn't have or enjoy casual sex.

Linking the prostitution and abortion debates

2007-01-06T18:02:00.000-08:00

What is the difference between these two arguments?

1) Prostitution is always violence against women. It's physically dangerous, it victimizes them, robs them of their sexuality, and inflicts lasting psychological harm. Women never truly choose prostitution; they are forced into it by men, poverty, desperation, etc. We must give women better options by abolishing prostitution and helping them out of it.

2) Abortion is always violence agaist women. It's physically dangerous, it victimizes them, robs them of their motherhood role, and inflicts lasting psychological harm. Women never truly choose abortion; they are forced into it by men, poverty, desperation, etc. We must give women better options by banning abortion and helping them keep their babies.

Of course, no analogy is perfect; that's the nature of analogies. For example, the above anti-choice argument is actually a sophistry the "pro-lifers" use to mask their fetus focus, and the prostitution-abolitionist position may be a bit simplistic. The bottom line however, is the issue of choice - abolitionists don't recognize the agency of women's choice in sex work, just like anti-choicers don't really recognize it in abortion. Or when they do, they label the woman as callous and immoral, or at least "a fallen woman" - which I suspect may also be how some abolitionists see a willing prostitute.

Some might protest that a better analogy would be to link forced prostitution with forced abortion. But the issue of force is analogous to abortion only in the case of women forced into prostitution (or forced out of it for that matter), or forced to have an abortion or a baby. The real issue is that women should not be forced to do anything; they should have a free choice. That includes deciding whether to have a baby or abortion, and whether to sell sexual services or do some other job.

It's not different people making these arguments, by the way. Abolitionist feminists are politically aligned with conservative Christians on the prostitution issue. (See this article for example: "Why the Faith Trade Is Interested in the Sex Trade".) Both arguments perpetuate the sexual double standard for women, and both deny women's agency and sexual autonomy. There's even a "Feminists for Life" group that spends most of their time blaming men for abortion, the same way that abolitionists blame men for prostitution.

The common element in the abortion debate and the prostitution debate, as well as the gay rights debate, is sexuality. Many people feel a strong need to control other people's sexuality, particularly when it's not confined to the sacred marriage bed and procreation. Anything outside that is "illicit sex." Abortion is seen as proof of illicit sex, prostitution IS illicit sex, and gay sex is - well, an abomination. While gays have achieved a measure of respect and tolerance in our society, that's likely because they're men, for whom casual sex is more socially acceptable to begin with (there are fewer lesbians than gay men, and lesbians are arguably more marginalized). Prostitutes and women who have abortions, on the other hand, violate the natural order of things because they are not having sex to have babies, which is women's redeeming purpose in life according to right-wingers. Therefore, both are stigmatized and made to feel ashamed.

This highlights the critical link between contraception and legal abortion and the necessary destigmatization of sex work (and female promiscuity in general). One of the most obvious reasons men buy sex is because there's not enough women willing to have no-strings-attached sex. But contraception and legal abortion give women true sexual freedom for the first time in history - that is, the freedom to engage in sex for fun without consequences. Why aren't more women taking better advantage of it? Let's stop buying into the double standard - it's a form of anti-feminist, anti-humanist social repression that lies at the root of both the prostitution-abolition position and the anti-choice position on abortion.

Why Prostitution Cannot Be Abolished

2006-12-10T17:21:00.000-08:00

...and should not be abolished

Choice Joyce

There's a very interesting debate amongst feminists in Canada, and throughout the world. One camp fights for the rights of sex workers to work, organize, and decriminalize prostitution, while the other wants to abolish it completely. The latter camp was 100% in control of a conference I recently attended in Vancouver British Columbia, on violence against women, billed as a “Remember Me” memorial to commemorate the Dec 6, 1989 Montreal Massacre. One of the main themes at the conference was that prostitution is violence against women – it’s always exploitive, dangerous, oppressive, and dehumanizing for women.

Although many of the arguments I heard were thoughtful and sincere, I'm convinced that prostitution is something that cannot be, and should not be, abolished. I don't agree with the abolitionists that you can just change social attitudes en masse by discouraging men from believing they are "entitled" to sex – or by forcing them via criminal law to stop buying sex. I strongly suspect that prostitution is mostly a consequence of biological and psychological gender differences in sexual behaviour and needs, which in turn are reflected in patriarchy. We can only resolve the prostitution problem by ensuring that women have full equality and freedom throughout the world, including sexual autonomy in particular. By “resolve” I don’t mean abolishing prostitution or even necessarily reducing it – I mean making prostitution a safe and respectable occupation for both men and women.

At the conference, the women who wanted to abolish prostitution dismissed the main objections to their position as “myths.” However, I’m not aware of any convincing refutation of these so-called myths, which can be summed up as: Prostitution is inevitable and can't be stopped, because men tend to have stronger sex drives and need more frequent sex and more variety in sexual partners compared to women, and prostitution gives men an outlet. There’s a biological basis to the sexual variety “myth”, since evolution (natural selection) tends to encourage men to spread their seed far and wide to maximize their reproductive potential. Women on the other hand must invest significant resources in pregnancy, so they’re better off finding one man who will stick around and help provide for the children. The implications of men needing sexual variety are that they can more easily separate love from sex, and more easily have sex with women they don't know well, or don't even care about. Women, though, would tend to have a preference for finding the "right" man and being in love with him before having sex with him. The ongoing existence of the double standard seems to support this. When men are promiscuous, it's considered normal, even admirable. But a promiscuous woman is disrespected and called a "slut" and a "whore," or at least pitied because she suffers from “low self-esteem.” This double standard is very strongly entrenched across various cultures and times. Prostitutes are often the ultimate victims of the double standard. They have very low status and no respect, they're considered worthless and disposable, and that's why they're frequently beaten, raped, and killed.

I think there's two basic questions that need to be answered to understand why prostitution occurs and figure out how to stop the abuse of prostitutes. One – why do men buy sex? And two – why do prostitutes have such low status?

Why do men buy sex?

There are obvious gender differences in sexual behaviour and preferences that might help explain why many men resort to buying sex. Whether these differences are biologically or culturally determined, or a mix of both, is hard to say, and ultimately may not matter. But they do exist, they’re difficult to change, and likely impossible to eradicate for much of the population. I heard about an intriguing (but non-scientific) survey recently – apparently the average man thinks about sex 50 times a day, but the average woman only thinks about sex once a day. That’s probably an exaggeration, but there's likely some truth to it. Generally speaking, men seem much more easily and quickly aroused than women. I don't believe that men actually enjoy sex more than women, or even have stronger sex drives necessarily. Instead, it may simply be more work for women to reach a state of desire and arousal. My subjective observation is that women’s interest in sex tends to increase when they like a particular man and his whole personality – not just by seeing any man, or a penis by itself. A gynecologist I know has mockups of male and female “turn-on” machines that he shows to his patients. The man’s machine is small and simple – just an on/off switch. The woman’s machine is a complicated array of levers, switches, bells, and whistles, which take some time to figure out until the machine gradually fires up. The doctor’s patients usually laugh in instant recognition when they see the machines. The point is, if men's sexual urges are closer to the surface and more easily triggered than women's, it could help explain why men need to engage in sex on a more frequent and casual basis than women.

Of course, those turn-on machines may just be playing to cultural stereotypes. Maybe the reason the libido of many women seems more ambiguous and slower to respond, is because women tend to repress their sexual urges. There’s still a lot of cultural stigma around women’s enjoyment of sex, especially casual sex. I believe women could easily learn and adopt an aggressive quick-response pattern for their own sexuality too, if they were motivated and it was socially acceptable. It’s quite possible, in fact, that many women are more promiscuous today compared to previous decades or centuries – but there’s still some shame attached to it, so it’s more hidden.

It's true that many men feel "entitled" to sex and entitled to have access to women. Some say this sense of entitlement embodies a patriarchal attitude that disempowers women and objectifies them. But why shouldn’t everyone feel entitled to sex, and entitled to have access to the gender of their choice? (At least those with high sex drives!) Actually, it’s natural for both men and women to enjoy being a sex object at certain times. It adds to sexual excitement, and is not in the least dehumanizing. Those who abhor the “sexual objectification” of women come dangerously close to negating women’s own sexual agency and autonomy. Because if women are “objectified” by men’s desire, this denies their ability and their right to enjoy the thrill of being desired by men, and the sheer carnal pleasure of consummating that desire. I also wonder if many of those who disapprove of the “sexual objectification” of women cannot relate to it simply because sex is not a high personal priority for them. Allow me to quote a sex therapist friend of mine: “Sexuality is simply like chocolate, where some of us like it better than others, and some of us can't figure out what's so great about it. There’s nothing pathological about that, except that it makes it difficult for those folks to understand many things about sexuality.” (Dr. David Hersh, personal communication, Dec. 2006).

It’s often said by supporters of prostitution that men need prostitutes because they’re lonely or unattractive men who can’t otherwise get a date. Opponents of prostitution tend to say that men who use prostitutes are exploitive and often violent, the worst type of male chauvinist pig, in other words. However, one study of men who visited brothels (Psychologists Marita McCabe and Luke Xantidis, Deakin University, Australia, 2000) showed that 80% of them did so because they have a high sex drive and were feeling “aroused”. The next most common response was the desire for sexual variety. 60% had a regular female partner, while only a third said it was the only way they could get sex. Another study published in the British Medical Journal in 2005 found that most men who pay for sex are just ordinary men – married, divorced, or single – our brothers, fathers, friends, and lovers – who just want some extra sex and excitement on the side, including activities their partner won't do. Interestingly, men who have no other sexual outlet tend to want companionship and emotional intimacy from prostitutes. But the men who make up the bulk of prostitutes’ customers like the convenience of sex without commitment. A reporter who talked to many of these men wrote that the lack of any emotional obligation was cited as one of the most appealing attributes of paying for sex. (Who pays for sex? You'd be surprised, Clare Spurrell, November 7, 2006)

The question is, why can't the two-thirds of men with high sex drives and a need for sexual variety, find ordinary women to have casual sex with by mutual agreement, without money changing hands, and without worrying about emotional entanglements? The answer seems obvious. Most women simply do not want to engage in casual sexual encounters with different men, and that leads men to look for sex from an easier source – a prostitute. But if women were more sexually open and available, and if that was accepted by society without stigma – then maybe men wouldn't need to pay for sex.

Of course, having sex with the person we love is very special, for both men and women. But sex just for fun with friends, acquaintances, even strangers, has its own charms, and should not be denigrated. It's a pleasurable activity that most of us have engaged in occasionally, if not frequently. The trouble with requiring sex to always be "special" is that this expectation becomes a a tool to control people, especially women. Abstinence lectures are primarily directed towards women, and there's even a common assumption that women are somehow "hard-wired" to develop an emotional attachment when they have sex. In reality, however, lifelong monogamy is simply not practiced by the majority of the population, both male and female.

Why do prostitutes have such low status?

The cruelty and disrespect that prostitutes are subjected to doesn't seem to have any rational reason. What's "wrong" with a woman who has sex with many men, whether it's for money or not? Why should she be ashamed? The truth is, there's nothing wrong with it, and she shouldn’t be ashamed. We could look at promiscuous women in a completely different way, if we chose to - first, by dropping the judgmental connotation of the word "promiscuous" — it's a useful word for anyone who gets to enjoy lots of sex with lots of people. Promiscuous women actually wield a lot of power over men. It’s men after all who do most of the pursuing of women and sex, as a rule. Why not admire women’s ability to attract men, to please men, and enjoy sex with men? Why not envy women’s ability to achieve multiple orgasms? Their ability to continue the sexual act until the point of physical exhaustion, unlike men? Why shouldn't men consider it an honour to have sex with a sexually-strong woman who has an appetite for frequent encounters and many men? Why don’t they line up for the privilege of satisfying such a woman, to try and give her as many orgasms as possible? It could be a status symbol for men, and the woman herself could earn a high social status because of her activities. The more men she has sex with, and the more orgasms she has, the higher her status. She could become a sex goddess – almost worthy of worship! With such high status, and men as her supplicants, obviously she is not going to be beaten and raped. She will retain confident control over her situation, and others will protect her too.

But this entire scenario seems so unusual, so outlandish, that it would seem impossible to implement. It leads one to the conclusion that the existing double standard is more than just a social or cultural phenomenon – it must have deep socio-biological roots. I would suggest that prostitutes and promiscuous women are despised because there's a deep conviction that such women cannot be good or responsible mothers (because there's no stable father figure present) and also because men cannot know the paternity of the children those women may bear. The father is unknown and therefore powerless. That threatens men, and the patriarchal power structure, at a very fundamental level.

The male need to control paternity

Let’s return to our patriarchal history for a moment. The key to the origin of patriarchy probably lies in the biological need for people to invest in their own children, rather than someone else’s. In the animal world for instance, animals do not normally look after the offspring of others, unless they’ve been tricked into it. Males will even kill another male’s offspring so the female will be free to mate with them instead. Now, women always know that the children they bear are related to them, but men can never know for sure who their genetic offspring are. This male dilemma doesn’t matter much to women, because women are more interested in finding someone reliable to help provide for their children – and that someone does not have to be the biological father. In fact, female deception in this regard has always been common—it’s been estimated that up to nine percent of children in the world are being raised by men who only think they are the fathers.

In ancient human societies, the obvious and most practical way for men to ensure that they invested only in their own children was to dictate and restrict women’s sexual behaviour. Throughout patriarchal history, society has guaranteed men’s paternity by controlling women’s reproductive capacity. Here’s a list of some common ways this happened, and still happens today in various countries:

• mutilating girl’s genitals to reduce sexual desire and ability later in life
• imposing premarital virginity
• expecting women to be chaste, modest, submissive, and asexual (while men can be adventurous - the classic double standard)
• covering up women with veils and burkas so they won't tempt men
• arranging marriages
• implementing dowry systems (which incidentally, leads to sex selection of boy babies over girl babies)
• requiring absolute fidelity from wives
• punishing female adultery harshly
• committing “honour killings” of women
• raping women to dishonour their families, or mass rape as a weapon of war
• forcing women to marry their rapists
• confining women in their houses and chaperoning them in public
• teaching abstinence-only education
• making contraception hard to access
• making abortion illegal and unsafe
• treating women as chattel, the property of men (with harems the ultimate example)
• keeping women disadvantaged and powerless, by denying them education, preventing them from working outside the home or participating in politics, paying them lower wages, and denying them equality

How does the need to guarantee male paternity relate to prostitution? The double standard ensures that most women remain relatively chaste. But if men look for sexual variety and no-strings-attached sex much more than women do, that results in a shortage of sexually-available women. This helps explain the neat patriarchal division of women into two main classes: Virgin and Whore. The Virgins are men’s mothers, wives, and daughters, the “good” women that men require to bear and raise their children. The Whores are the “bad” women whose role is simply to satisfy the extra-curricular urges of men. Whores are devalued simply because their purpose is not to have children – even if they do have children, the paternity will be highly uncertain, from a man's perspective. The inability of Whores to give men children or guarantee men’s paternity means that Whores have no value to men, and therefore no status and no respect.

Are men jealous of women?

However, the issue of male paternity may not entirely explain the abuse and discrimination levelled at women. After all, many men beat their wives, prefer sons over daughters, and generally discriminate against “good” women in a variety of ways. So let’s talk a bit about “womb envy,” the psychoanalytic opposite of “penis envy.” The term was coined by Karen Horney, a breakaway colleague of Sigmund Freud, who produced a body of work on feminine psychology in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Horney surmised that men have an unconscious envy of women’s ability to give birth. She said that men’s drive to succeed in the outside world and leave a legacy, is simply a compensation for their inability to leave a more direct legacy by bearing and raising children.

Certainly, if men have such an obsessive need to establish paternity, they must feel more than a little resentful at women’s child-bearing capacity. It’s a powerful ability, arguably the most important of any human ability – and only women have it. Not only must men control that capacity to guarantee paternity, but they must also control women – even punish them – for having that power to begin with. We need only look around at the lowly status of women throughout much of the world, and the terrible violence they are regularly subjected to, to realize that womb envy is probably more than a mere hypothesis.

Most domestic abuse and homicides of women by their partners are actually rooted in the man's jealousy or suspicion that his partner is being unfaithful, which reflects male anxiety about paternity. However, crimes against pregnant women tend to support the theory of womb envy. Statistics show that homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant women, after medical complications. And it is the leading cause of death for both pregnant women and new mothers combined. Motives vary, but mostly come down to men fearing or resenting the intrusion of a baby into their lives. The man may just want to protect his freedom or continue an extra-marital affair, but something else is often at play here. All new mothers know that a new baby takes a lot of time and attention, with husbands and marriages often taking a back seat for awhile. Many men miss being the centre of their wife’s life. Some resent playing second fiddle so much that they resort to murder, or at least abuse. Is a man’s jealousy of his own baby that far removed from jealousy over the creation of that baby in the first place?

Jealousy and resentment of women's child-bearing capacity, as well as fear of their "dangerous" sexual power and potential, may help explain men's abuse of women in general. But again, prostitutes get the shortest end of the stick because they are the most vulnerable. Our society gives men permission to abuse prostitutes and an easy means to do it, simply by removing those women from the protection of the law and rendering them disposable. One could say that prostitutes serve as a proxy for women as a whole because they bear the brunt of men's rage and fear.

Can we change or reduce prostitution?

Given the biological and psychological differences between men and women, I'm skeptical about how much our basic sexual behaviour and attitudes can really change. To some extent, yes – because human beings are remarkably adaptable and intelligent – but it won’t be enough to ever abolish prostitution, perhaps not even to reduce it – assuming we want to do that.

All feminists are rightly concerned about the systemic violence, abuse, and exploitation to which prostitutes are often subjected. But where the abolitionists say that prostitution itself is inherently violent and abusive to women, those who advocate sex workers’ rights claim it’s the working conditions and circumstances that foster the violence and abuse. They say that decriminalizing prostitution, putting various safeguards and supports in place, and educating the public to accept sex work as legitimate work that a woman can choose to do, will mostly alleviate the dangerous aspects of prostitution. For example, they say it would improve the quality of johns, so far fewer of them would be violent. The abolitionists speak often of the “sexual objectification” of women in the sex trade. They label prostitution as rape and a form of male privilege in our violent "rape culture." Abolitionists also dismiss claims that prostitution can ever be a real choice for a woman. They support anti-trafficking laws that make a woman’s consent irrelevant. In response, sex worker advocates say these are moralistic positions that denies women’s agency and sexual autonomy. They say that many women do choose sex work, many enjoy the work (or at least don't mind it) and many can experience increased self-esteem simply because there's men willing to pay to have sex with them. (Let’s also admit that plenty of men would jump at the chance to be paid for sex with women, and would not feel the least degraded by it). But regardless of whether women like working in the sex trade or not, the main reason women choose prostitution and stay in it is money. Sex workers say that prostitution is a feasible, even empowering choice, simply because it allows them to pay their rent and feed their families. In fact, women in prostitution can often earn far more than they could at any other unskilled job.

This divide between abolitionists and sex worker advocates simply underlines the problems within prostitution itself. While many (perhaps even most) women in the sex trade today are not there by choice, and do experience abuse and exploitation, many others have chosen to become sex workers and want to stay in it – or would stay if conditions improved and their safety could be better assured. So how do we protect the rights of the latter without hurting the former, and vice versa?

When it comes down to it, if two consenting adults come to a private agreement to have sex in exchange for money, how can anyone possibly stop that? And why should we stop it? Where is the harm if the woman is in business for herself, earning and keeping the money herself, and setting the terms and conditions of her relations with clients? Why not let these women be, and help them improve their working conditions? Why not empower women to work independently, or with a small peer group of other sex workers? Of course, an independent prostitute may want to pay others to help manage her business and keep her safe, but the key is, they must work for her and she calls the shots, not vice versa. After all, most of the abuse in sex work today occurs in the context of exploitive third parties like pimps and traffickers. The illegality and low status of sex work combine to make it easy for these third parties to mistreat women. But if prostitutes are accorded the same right to decent working conditions as any other worker, and that right was actively enforced through labour laws and demanded by society, then such abuse would decrease significantly.

One might still feel that, ideally, no-one should have to sell sexual services in order to make a living, that women have better options. Although it’s unrealistic to abolish prostitution, perhaps reducing it significantly is still a worthy and achievable goal. It’s been claimed that Sweden's law has done that by criminalizing the purchase – not the sale – of sex. Prostitutes are treated as victims and helped out of prostitution, while their clients are arrested and prosecuted. However, the law has by no means eradicated prostitution. Many people are not discouraged by the law and don't agree with the premise behind it – that prostitution is violence against women. Many men simply go elsewhere or find other ways to access prostitutes. The law has possibly increased the use of the Internet for prostitutes and their clients. And sex workers have been driven underground in order to continue their work and protect their clients, which puts their lives and health more at risk. This means that Sweden can't accurately count the number of prostitutes. So how can we have confidence in its claim of a two-thirds reduction in prostitutes due to the new law? The problem with using law enforcement to reduce prostitution, is that it tends to be too harsh and punitive, often hurting the very people it's supposed to protect.

Criminalization in any form has never worked, and it violates the rights of both sex workers and their clients. But it’s not clear that legalization of prostitution (where the trade is regulated and restricted, as in Nevada and the Netherlands) or outright decriminalization (as in New Zealand recently) are good solutions either. Evidence indicates that legalization may simply increase prostitution, and with it the most dangerous and coercive types of prostitution, because many women are driven underground to escape the regulations. It’s too early to tell how well decriminalization will work, but it might pose similar risks to women’s safety and dignity, at least at first.

Is it fair to women to legalize or decriminalize prostitution when it's still such a reviled profession and the abuse of women is rampant within it? That can amount to a sanction of such abuse. Perhaps we should try to change social attitudes first. But that's probably impossible while prostitution is illegal, since it's the illegality itself that invites much of the stigma, violence, and abuse. Decriminalizing prostitution should, theoretically at least, lead to changed social attitudes and transform the profession into something safe and respectable – but it would probably take decades. So what about the meantime? How do we stem the abuse of women within sex work, especially when we can't guarantee we'll ever reach the point where it becomes safe and respectable for women?

In the end, there are no easy answers to the prostitution problem. To truly get rid of exploitive and abusive forms of sex work– and to reduce sex work in general if that’s what we want to do – we need to raise the status of women to unprecedented levels. The key lies in reducing patriarchal attitudes. Women must have the right to enjoy their own sexuality and control their own reproductive capacity, free from punitive laws, male control, or social judgment. That requires making abortion and contraception legal and easily accessible all over the world, minus the controversy that still surrounds both. It means abolishing the double standard and removing the stigma of casual sex for women, so that men don’t need prostitutes as much. These measures would require major social and political changes, and the most extensive Enlightenment campaign on women’s rights and sexual ethics the world has ever seen. Given the degree of opposition such measures would encounter from society at large, not to mention right-wing and even centrist governments, stamping out the bad aspects of prostitution is a very tall order indeed.

Let no fetus defeat us!

2006-04-08T07:10:00.000-07:00

(trust women)

By Joyce Arthur

In today's abortion debate, the fetus looms large – larger than life one might say, given the giant posters of phony aborted fetuses the anti-abortion movement likes to parade around with.

There's been increasing demands lately for the American pro-choice movement to "face the fetus," to admit things like abortion kills a human being – or if not an actual human being, then at least something valuable and worthy of sober contemplation. We're supposed to worry that abortion rights may have gone too far, concede that abortion is bad, agree there are too many abortions, and work to reduce them. Towards that end, the anti-choice contingent wants to restrict both abortion and contraception by law to force women to have babies, while some pro-choice people would just prefer to put all women on birth control. Yes, we apparently have only two moral choices when it comes to this most urgent priority of saving babies – produce them fully-fledged, or make sure they never reach the single-cell stage to begin with. It's everyone's job now. Oh, except for women of childbearing age, who are just the passive receptacles for our baby and non-baby programs alike.

Being a woman myself, but not a passive receptacle, I've got a better idea. Let's just butt out of the whole thing. And trust pregnant women to decide what to do. Women have been having sex, getting pregnant, delivering babies, and yes, having abortions since the origin of the species. So I think we know what we're doing. We know what our needs and wants are, we understand our situations like no-one else can, and we care about our families and our futures. We can figure out by ourselves what's best for any particular pregnancy. When we want outside advice, we'll ask for it. Frankly, any unwanted interference with our decision insults our intelligence, our moral wisdom, and our very humanity.

Oh, but what about the fetus? Shouldn't everyone care about what happens to it? Well...NO, actually. And there are two good reasons for that:

A. Fetuses are not that important.
B. Fetuses are none of our business.

If that shocks and offends you, it's probably because you subscribe to one or more irrational and insupportable beliefs, which I'll get to in a moment.

First, let me emphasize that the crucial exception to both of these reasons is the pregnant woman. She has full authority and rights to consider her own personal fetus to be the most important and valuable thing in the world. Or not. She can judge it however she likes, and then decide whether it should live or die. It's her call and hers alone. Of course, if she's happily pregnant and wants to share her joy, it's incumbent on her friends and family to celebrate her fetus, too. But that's about it. If you think that a particular fetus deserves to be born regardless of the pregnant woman's view, then your opinion is based on irrational and insupportable reasons.

You might protest that, in a collective sense, fetuses should be “our business” if they are destined to be born, since we want them to enjoy happy, healthy, and productive lives once they arrive. But their health and welfare is best assured indirectly, by helping pregnant women access pre-natal care and resources. A pregnant woman wants a good outcome for her baby far more than anybody else, so all we have to do is give her the means to make it happen. Also, it’s well-documented that women, families, communities, and entire countries benefit in myriad ways when women have the power to decide if and when to have children, and how many they can adequately care for. These benefits can’t be fully realized without access to abortion, which makes abortion a moral positive that outweighs any supposed right-to-life of a fetus.

You might bristle at my claim that fetuses are "not that important." But remember that the vast majority of abortions are done when the fetus is really just a miniscule cluster of cells, or a mostly unformed entity about the size and shape of a cashew, maybe a Brazil nut. Regardless of its potential to become a human being, there is simply no physical comparison between an early fetus and a born baby. The latter also has rights and a legally-recognized existence, unlike a fetus. And there is certainly no comparison between an early fetus and a grown woman. A pregnant woman has sentience, rights, an established life, and a large web of connections to people who need and love her. The fetus does not. On those grounds, fetuses are simply not as important to us, socially speaking, compared to born babies or grown women. At least they shouldn't be.

But many people think fetuses are enough of a priority to allow interference with a woman's reproductive autonomy – some even believe that saving a fetus overrides a woman's own right-to-life. I see four possible reasons for such a stance, all equally irrational and insupportable.

1. Egocentrism - People identify personally with the fetus - after all, we were all embryos once. "That aborted fetus could have been me!" This view personifies the fetus, empathizing with its plight as if the fetus were part of one's own identity and personality, or at least anthropomorphizing it into a sentient being just like ourselves. Abortion symbolizes the possible non-existence of one's own self, a deeply frightening and intolerable prospect to many people. Rank-and-file anti-abortion people who seem to truly care about fetuses fall into this category, but many in the pro-choice "muddled middle" probably do too.

2. Soul-saving - Most anti-abortion people are deeply religious, and they may worry about the fate of the fetus' soul. If a fetus is aborted, it will never have a chance to be saved and go to heaven, unlike adult women who've had ample chance to convert to Jesus. Therefore, it's crucial that fetuses be born so they have a chance to be saved, while women's needs and circumstances hardly matter.

3. Fear of freedom - The anti-abortion mindset tends to adhere to the "strict father" authoritarian model. People's beliefs and behavior must be molded and controlled, especially since human nature is basically "sinful," as many people believe. They're convinced people need God to be good, or at least plenty of laws and rules. If left to their own devices, and given too much freedom, people will descend into irresponsibility, debauchery, and downright evil. Traditional roles for men and women also play an essential role in keeping everyone on the straight and narrow. When men are breadwinners and family heads, and women are faithful wives and mothers, the world becomes a safe and secure place. Rebels, such as women who have abortions, must be contained and punished because they upset the world order, make God mad, and risk his vengeance. Most right-wing leaders and activists are under the sway of Reason #3.

4. Fear of women - This reason encompasses sexist attitudes in general, but when it comes to abortion, it's rooted in the belief that women's primary, ennobling role is to bear and raise children. If a woman doesn't want that, there must be something wrong with her. Fear of women also means disapproving of and trying to control women's sexuality when it's freely expressed outside the context of marriage and procreation, or at least without the benefit of "true love" with that special person. Finally, fear of women includes fear of women's power and freedom in general. Educated, successful, independent, assertive women are still a scary threat to an awful lot of men, at least on some level. Keeping women busy with a brood of children removes much of that threat.

Anyone who subscribes to one or more of these irrational and insupportable beliefs, even unconsciously, will have at least some doubts about abortion rights. And the public face of those doubts usually centres on the fetus. Those who hold to Reasons 3 or 4 generally use the fetus as a cover, since people in our modern democratic society don't like to admit they're afraid of freedom or women, even to themselves.

Unfortunately, barely 20% of the population, perhaps considerably less, can actually rise above these irrational beliefs enough to completely trust women to make their own reproductive decisions. And when I say completely, I mean 100% pro-choice: Trusting women to abort for any reason they see fit (or no apparent reason at all). Having compassion for women's circumstances and tough life-and-death decisions. Understanding that women are far from perfect, but loving them anyway. Respecting women's right to have and enjoy sex whenever they want, with whomever they want, as often as they want. Accepting that women should never be morally judged for getting accidentally pregnant, because it's intrinsic to their biology to get pregnant when they have sex. Appreciating the sheer challenge of trying to avoid pregnancy over most of a lifetime of sexual activity. Knowing that birth control doesn't always work, or women can't always use it, or they can’t afford it or even access it. Sympathizing with women if they forget to use birth control or don’t want to use it, since contraception has many negative side effects, not the least of which is putting a damper on sexual pleasure.

Speaking of the inconvenience of birth control, it’s odd that men are not judged harshly for avoiding condoms and vasectomies, yet women are labelled “irresponsible” if they don’t want the bother, risks, and side-effects of birth control. The burden for contraception falls largely on women, but that’s all the more reason for us to be very forgiving when women accidentally get pregnant. Don’t get me wrong – artificial birth control is one of the greatest inventions of humanity, on a par with agriculture and creating fire. But advocating that all women use contraception overlooks the obvious — why not require men to pull more weight too? Why is it always women's behavior — more pointedly, their sexual behavior – that must be modified? Oh, right...Reason #4. Sadly, paternalism resides even in the hearts of many progressives.

Please, let's stop worrying about fetuses and entrust that job to each pregnant woman. She will take good care of her fetus because she's the one most capable of ensuring its best interests. That may mean aborting it if she's not ready or willing to take care of a baby. Once we truly trust and respect women, once we see them as full and equal human beings on a par with men, we will intuitively understand that the best way to protect fetuses and babies is by guaranteeing women's lives, health, rights, and equality. A pregnant woman is the only fetal advocate we need.

The heart of the abortion issue is inside the heart of a woman. Trust women. Let no fetus defeat us!