That would be your conclusion if you listen to the current rhetoric or view the pending legislation emanating from the Republican members of Congress. Clearly, women are incapable of making moral decisions, and must remain subjugated in the best interests of society.
We have a long history of the difficulties women face when accusing a man of rape. They, rather than the accused, often go on trial: How were they dressed, how did they act – it's not enough that they didn't wish to have sex, or that they perhaps indicated as much; unless they took every precaution, denied him at every turn, perhaps they wished it? And now, we have bills presented that would change a rape victim's status to that of 'rape accuser'.
Notice how that changes our perception: A victim is somehow noble, pure, while an accuser can be dirty, have hidden motives, perhaps even speak falsely.
The underlying issue is this: How are men to engage in pre- or extra-marital sex if they can be easily convicted of rape? Their reputations can be tarnished, their marriages split, if women are empowered to accuse them of their dirty actions. No, better to cast doubt on the woman's actions, make it difficult for her to prove, have society aid by labeling her a tramp, a floozy, a trollop. She's not a victim, but just an accuser (it wasn't rape, until she realized he wouldn't leave his wife for her, he'll argue.)
Strange how father-daughter chastity balls have become popular amongst the conservative crowd: But where are the mother-son chastity balls? Why isn't abstention of equal importance for men as it is for women? Why shouldn't the penalties for pre- and extra-marital sex be high for men, also?
Men have had it good for so long: In the dominant position, women were property, sex could be taken at will, and any women who dared to speak up would have to suffer humiliation, while the men could brag about their exploits, free from any pejoratives.
The attempts to keep women subjugated continue, by denying them moral agency. Movements abound to force a rehearing of Roe v. Wade, in the hopes that it will be overturned. More stringent anti-abortion laws have been proposed (including the condoning of vigilantism in South Dakota!). Strangely, even the availability of contraceptives (which can prevent the conditions that would lead to abortion!) have been under continued attack (I see that Planned Parenthood faces a major funding cut under the proposed Republican budget). All appears to be part of an effort to force women to bear more children – which continues the power asymmetry, forcing women into marriage for economic reasons, or forcing them to bear the economic difficulties of attempting to raise children alone while working (which aids in keeping them from rising as far in the workplace.)
The position taken is that abortion is an absolute moral wrong. Interestingly, though, allowances are made for medical reasons, and instances of rape (and the aforementioned changes appear to be an attack on closing this loophole.) Most religious organizations have accepted that abortion in cases of rape and incest is allowable.
But that reveals that abortion is not an absolute: That it is a decision, that a choice can be made between this life and that life. It sets up judges and doctors as moral arbiters, but denies moral agency to those most affected by the decision: The pregnant woman. It continues our history of female subjugation, suggesting that men are more capable moral agents, and that women are not suited to make difficult decisions for themselves.
Our views of personal liberty should suggest otherwise. Our views should always motivate us to give individual moral agency as freely as possible – that is the very meaning of liberty. We want those closest to the question, those who will live with the consequences, to have the freedom to make the decision. Equality is there, too: If we tier our giving of moral agency, then we are creating inequality, also.
Women are equal moral agents to men (and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary!), fully capable of engaging in moral and civic life to the same degree as men. And in the case of abortion, the woman, who for whatever reasons is considering it, is the individual who will be most affected, who will most carry the consequences, who will remember. So, it only stands to reason in a free and equal society, that the pregnant woman, perhaps in consult with her friend, her clergy, her doctor, her husband, or perhaps alone, is given the right to exercise her moral agency and make the decision without interference.
There is nothing in these proposed laws that make society a better, freer place in which to exercise our individual liberty. They are decidedly skewed towards female subjugation, towards returning to a previous time. But when the previous time involved deep subjugation, an asymmetry of power, there is nothing noble about either the time or the conditions that made it so.
Sure, some men will argue that without these laws they are losing some of their liberty. But, any freedom that comes from inequality is a false freedom, for it can be quickly lost if power shifts. No, real, enduring liberty comes only when it is derived from the interactions of equal members of society, exercising their moral agency, and equally free to do so. Equal members who have to adhere to the same social mores, the same customs, where an interaction is not asymmetrical, but equally acceptable or equally unacceptable.
It also means the freedom to choose the life that we will live, defined by the choices we make. We have the liberty to choose as unacceptable some behavior, and refrain from that behavior ourselves (and perhaps influence others to copy our actions!). But in claiming that freedom, we must have the courage to grant the same freedom to all others, and the wisdom to comprehend that they won't all make the same choices we make, and will live different lives. Freedom is multifaceted, and attempts to constrain it to a single viewpoint, such as these Republican proposed laws, must be met and beaten back in the interests of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment