(no subject)
Jun. 11th, 2008 08:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseSo now that we've had some time to think about it (and I've calmed down a little): can we really gain anything from revisiting abortion rights in this country? As we know, abortion law in New Zealand does not accurately reflect the way we think about (or, indeed, practise) abortion. In practise abortion here leans towards (though is not close enough to) abortion on demand. In law, it's, well, dodgy.
I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone when I say that I think NZ abortion law needs reforming: it has to be more liberal and it really ought to reflect the way abortion is practised. Medical abortion should be made available more easily (it's currently available only in four centres, and I believe only in one in the whole South Island.) Doctors should not be able to refuse to provide abortion any more than they should be able to refuse to treat drunk drivers or murderers. And so forth. This is undeniably going to be controversial. In the last 24 hours posts have been popping up all over the NZ blogosphere bewailing this as an issue in election year. Nobody seems to think now is the right time.
But can we actually gain something from revisiting this issue? (Other than the obvious decriminalisation that no-one seems to think would be the result.) Look: National, as always, campaigns on being a party for "mainstream New Zealand," "hard working Kiwis." Obviously this is crap. But, you know: I think criminalised abortion does not represent the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. I certainly don't think it represents the wishes of women. National this year are trying to present themselves as a new, younger, more relevant party. Are they really going to maintain this image by being anti-abortion? It's true that in 2004 most National MPs voted to make girls have to inform their parents if they were having an abortion (I wish I could find this voting record but all I can find is some of the debates - anyone recall how Katherine Rich voted?) But I think increasing parents' totalitarian control is a different issue to restricting the right of women (adults or teenagers) to have this procedure at all.
If they do end up on the so-called side of "life" - I think that'll lose them some votes. I think this is an important issue for women, REALLY important, and I think that young women actually realise that. Young men? That's another question. Would I say that most young men I know (including the ones who are likely to vote National) are pro-life? Nope. Do I think this is an issue that they will be in solidarity with women over - that is to say, do I think they will treat it as an important voting issue? Well... maybe not.
The party this could really be a test for is ACT, of course: they can talk the low-tax tough-on-crime libertarian talk, but can they walk the rights-over-our-own-bodies libertarian walk? (History says no. But ACT might always surprise me.)
Finally, and in a slightly different vein: there's an interesting article here covering a study which shows that the difference in boys' and girls' performance in maths is probably not determined biologically but is defined by socioeconomic factors. Briefly, the study (which is in Science here) surveyed hundreds of thousands of records of boys' and girls' maths and reading performance. Overall, girls outscored boys by 7% in reading and boys outscored girls by 2% in maths. However a country-by-country analysis determined that in poorer countries and countries where women's rights are worse off, the gap in maths is significant; in wealthier countries with good equality records the gap is minor. Meanwhile, the gap in reading skills appears to be consistent: although girls' advantage does decrease in the poorer countries they do appear to hold onto it in most of them.
Now, OK: none of that is going to come as a surprise to anyone here, so while I celebrate that I finally have a study to point to and say SEE HAHA, that's basically it. What DOES drive me crazy is the bit at the end: OOGA BOOGA THIS IS VERY SCARY FOR MEN WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT TEH WIMMINS IS SMARTER THAN US? Now, I am the last person to say that the degree to which boys are increasingly performing poorly relative to girls is a problem (although can I stand how ironic it is that the same people who complain about feminism are also the ones who, flip the pronoun, and you get sincere feminist concerns? right. In fact boys performing badly is a feminist concern anyway.) But the author of the article said something astoundingly stupid:
Well, first off, it would be nice if articles of this kind were EVER accompanied by a celebration of women's success in education, so I'm going to take ten seconds: girls, we rock. We're doing really well in education systems that are mostly designed for the ways boys learn. Of course, even with our better grades they're still paying us less and working us harder, but hey! Better give those boys some advantages.
But see here, mister author: what do you MEAN we can't ascribe it to social inequality? OF COURSE girls' outperformance of boys is ascribable to social inequality: it's a consequence of tthe fact that boys' learning is undervalued and increasingly boys who enjoy learning and education are pressured by their families and parents; the educated man is no longer a facet of the socially "ideal" man. This isn't some special social factor that isn't about equality: it's about the way we value the sexes differently, which is, hey - unequal.
I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone when I say that I think NZ abortion law needs reforming: it has to be more liberal and it really ought to reflect the way abortion is practised. Medical abortion should be made available more easily (it's currently available only in four centres, and I believe only in one in the whole South Island.) Doctors should not be able to refuse to provide abortion any more than they should be able to refuse to treat drunk drivers or murderers. And so forth. This is undeniably going to be controversial. In the last 24 hours posts have been popping up all over the NZ blogosphere bewailing this as an issue in election year. Nobody seems to think now is the right time.
But can we actually gain something from revisiting this issue? (Other than the obvious decriminalisation that no-one seems to think would be the result.) Look: National, as always, campaigns on being a party for "mainstream New Zealand," "hard working Kiwis." Obviously this is crap. But, you know: I think criminalised abortion does not represent the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders. I certainly don't think it represents the wishes of women. National this year are trying to present themselves as a new, younger, more relevant party. Are they really going to maintain this image by being anti-abortion? It's true that in 2004 most National MPs voted to make girls have to inform their parents if they were having an abortion (I wish I could find this voting record but all I can find is some of the debates - anyone recall how Katherine Rich voted?) But I think increasing parents' totalitarian control is a different issue to restricting the right of women (adults or teenagers) to have this procedure at all.
If they do end up on the so-called side of "life" - I think that'll lose them some votes. I think this is an important issue for women, REALLY important, and I think that young women actually realise that. Young men? That's another question. Would I say that most young men I know (including the ones who are likely to vote National) are pro-life? Nope. Do I think this is an issue that they will be in solidarity with women over - that is to say, do I think they will treat it as an important voting issue? Well... maybe not.
The party this could really be a test for is ACT, of course: they can talk the low-tax tough-on-crime libertarian talk, but can they walk the rights-over-our-own-bodies libertarian walk? (History says no. But ACT might always surprise me.)
Finally, and in a slightly different vein: there's an interesting article here covering a study which shows that the difference in boys' and girls' performance in maths is probably not determined biologically but is defined by socioeconomic factors. Briefly, the study (which is in Science here) surveyed hundreds of thousands of records of boys' and girls' maths and reading performance. Overall, girls outscored boys by 7% in reading and boys outscored girls by 2% in maths. However a country-by-country analysis determined that in poorer countries and countries where women's rights are worse off, the gap in maths is significant; in wealthier countries with good equality records the gap is minor. Meanwhile, the gap in reading skills appears to be consistent: although girls' advantage does decrease in the poorer countries they do appear to hold onto it in most of them.
Now, OK: none of that is going to come as a surprise to anyone here, so while I celebrate that I finally have a study to point to and say SEE HAHA, that's basically it. What DOES drive me crazy is the bit at the end: OOGA BOOGA THIS IS VERY SCARY FOR MEN WHAT IF IT TURNS OUT TEH WIMMINS IS SMARTER THAN US? Now, I am the last person to say that the degree to which boys are increasingly performing poorly relative to girls is a problem (although can I stand how ironic it is that the same people who complain about feminism are also the ones who, flip the pronoun, and you get sincere feminist concerns? right. In fact boys performing badly is a feminist concern anyway.) But the author of the article said something astoundingly stupid:
The study, however, leaves us with yet another question of this sort: why do boys appear to read so poorly? We clearly can't ascribe it to social inequality, but that doesn't mean it isn't due to some other social factor.
Well, first off, it would be nice if articles of this kind were EVER accompanied by a celebration of women's success in education, so I'm going to take ten seconds: girls, we rock. We're doing really well in education systems that are mostly designed for the ways boys learn. Of course, even with our better grades they're still paying us less and working us harder, but hey! Better give those boys some advantages.
But see here, mister author: what do you MEAN we can't ascribe it to social inequality? OF COURSE girls' outperformance of boys is ascribable to social inequality: it's a consequence of tthe fact that boys' learning is undervalued and increasingly boys who enjoy learning and education are pressured by their families and parents; the educated man is no longer a facet of the socially "ideal" man. This isn't some special social factor that isn't about equality: it's about the way we value the sexes differently, which is, hey - unequal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-11 03:25 am (UTC)You can't have economic security without things like abortion rights and freely-available contraception and all that other social stuff, though; by ignoring those and leaving abortion in a precarious position, you leave women subject to a huge potential economic disadvantage. The two things go hand-in-hand. Not to mention the fact that women face, you know, sterility and death from illegal abortions (and the numbers in countries where it is illegal clearly show that women are willing to risk these things in order to not have a child.)
At the end of the day, men just do not run the same physical, societal, and financial risks from an unplanned pregnancy. I agree that it benefits men for abortion to be available to their partners, but it is not anywhere near the same level of risk.The thing is: a man can always walk away from an unplanned pregnancy. Regardless of whether he chooses to or whether he is societally condemned for it, he can. A woman, without the option of abortion, can't - without risking infection, sterility, death, and, hey, jail time.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-11 03:39 am (UTC)In the long term I agree, if only because it would seem absurd to economically empower women but restrict them from controlling one of their most economically crucial activities. But on the other hand, total gender equality isn't possible without overall economic equality. As long as work is commodified, women will never not be penalised for their ability to have a child. It doesn't matter how many laws forbid gender discrimination or how much control over their own sexuality women have or even how lavishly financially compensated or supported they are by the wealthy, as long as labour is commodified they'll never recieve the true value of their work in giving birth to a baby.
At the end of the day, men just do not run the same physical, societal, and financial risks from an unplanned pregnancy.
Again, agreed. I'm not arguing that men benefit as much as women from having abortion available, I'm simply arguing that they do benefit to some degree beyond the general sense in which everyone benefits from more harmonious gender relations (unless, I suppose, they're gay or asexual). I realise this isnt' controversial and I could be accused of arguing a fine point, but to be blunt, I feel I am capable of conceptualising the risks an unwanted pregnancy poses to a woman, in the same way I can conceptualise how much poverty sucks, even though I'm above the poverty line myself.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-11 03:46 am (UTC)I'm not really worried about recieving compensation for having a baby, I'm way more worried about being able to have babies as and when I choose, honestly. Like, the former would be nice, but the latter is the major economic concern for most women, and saying that, oh well, they'll realise they're better off worrying about economics first is kind of - it might be technically true, but it's not real-world true.
I feel I am capable of conceptualising the risks an unwanted pregnancy poses to a woman, in the same way I can conceptualise how much poverty sucks, even though I'm above the poverty line myself.
I don't dispute that you can conceptualise it. But it's not the words that matter; it's the bone-deep fear that someone can control my body. And you can't be scared of that like I can, because, short of some very extreme circumstances, it cannot and will not happen, whereas I see and interact with people every day who believe their "morals" trump my bodily autonomy. In the same way as I can never be scared of what will happen if my partner and I have PDAs like a gay person can, you can't feel that, because it can't happen to you.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 02:02 am (UTC)I've got to admit I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I don't dispute that you can conceptualise it. But it's not the words that matter; it's the bone-deep fear that someone can control my body.
OK, so perhaps I will never truly be able to formulate an informed opinion and should defer to those who are at risk, i.e. women. But as you've noted elsewhere in your comments, women do not speak with one voice on this issue. I can accept at least for the sake of the argument that women have more at stake and thus their voices count for more than men's in considering this issue, but which women's voices should I listen to?
For example, I've always admired the writings of Rosa Luxembourg. She lived in an Imperial Germany that was both economically and sexually regressive, and she chose to campaign for a more just economic order rather than for greater access to contraception and abortion. Not that I'm claiming she would endorse everything I say, but I feel the broad scope is the same, at least concerning short-term priorities. This, to me, shows that my position isn't derived from my gender, if those of a different gender are capable of reaching the same meta-conclusions.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 02:19 am (UTC)What I mean is that in a perfect world, it would be true, but in the real world, reproductive rights do a fuckload more to help women right now than campaigning for a perfect economy. And to a woman who's just found out she's pregnant, "but in an economy that valued your pregnancy you'd be fine" is pretty hollow comfort.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 06:09 am (UTC)I think what L's saying is essentially that women cannot afford to put off abortion legislation, irrelevant of economic factors. (I think this debate is largely academic anyway.)
no subject
Date: 2008-06-12 09:58 pm (UTC)Yes, if only because my hypothetical equality-seeking, abortion-disliking party is not likely to come along, at least in today's political climate. But if I didn't think academic debates were worth having I wouldn't have gone to University!