Abortion rights, misogyny and the fear of women

[stveee]

So it occurred to me that the end of abortion rights is directly related to misogyny (and indirectly transphobia), and therefore, from the patriarchal fear of women.

There is a psychological theory that suggests why this is particular to males, that is traced back to rejection by the mother, and this rejection necessary in order for the child to acheive a distinct identity.

But in males, there is a peculiar antagonism, because they eventually have to resolve this conflict in finding a mate of the opposite gender, which for many never fully happens because of the embedded memory of the initial rejection, which actually serves as the basis of his identity. So he, in turn rejects the female because of a sense of trauma, I believe what is called the "mother wound".

Why this is particular to men than women, again I speculate, is because girls eventually later find resolution through their own "death experiences" of puberty, losing their virginity, and eventually marriage.

Therefore, to become a woman demands a deeper connection with their mortality and the transience of roles and existence itself, whereas men continue to play out the fantasy of triumph and control over death, not only by dominating the feminine, but perpetuating religious myths of immortality: the fear of women is signifier of fear of death itself.

[VickySGV]

I admit that I have never heard that theory before.  Hmmm!! 

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, stveee said:

So it occurred to me that the end of abortion rights is directly related to misogyny (and indirectly transphobia), and therefore, from the patriarchal fear of women.

The abortion issue certainly is related to patriarchal control of women – often though religion.  And transphobia - specifically relating to trans women - can also be related to misogyny.  So misogyny is involved in both things.  But I'm not sure I see a direct link between abortion and transphobia, other than the same people behind them.

 

(Just off the top of my head)

[DeeDee]

I just don't understand the oxymoron of how anyone claiming to be for preserving the sanctity of life by removing a woman's autonomy can also choose to be pro guns, literal tools of death, which statistically end way more lives annually.  Misogyny doesn't make sense.

[stveee]

1 hour ago, VickySGV said:

I admit that I have never heard that theory before.  Hmmm!! 

I haven't formally studied philosophy, but IIRC the archetype of "the creator rejecting its creation" arises from either Hegel or Nietzsche. Some of it is also Jungian I suppose, but the point of it is explaining the human problem via archetypes, which are symbols and myths by which the Self understands itself and its place in the world. 

I find it more accurate to look past the various characters of the drama, and instead indict the script by which the characters unknowingly follow, which are embedded psychological patterns that, despite time or place, weave a thread in human affairs throughout history. Such problems have scant chance of ever changing unless humanity undergoes a total and drastic spiritual and psychic revolution.

A few movements have merely considered the possibility of a new order, but were quickly undermined by the lower natures and fear instinct that governs the physical structure of both mundane institutions and the humans that created them.

[Davie]

When the rich get richer using a policy, they adopt it. There's no sanity in it at all. But then they also feel more insecure (money cannot really buy you security) so they abuse anyone without influence or anyone who stands up for themselves to sharpen the class differences and to justify themselves.

Yay women, people of color, and LGTQ folks! Yay us.

— Davie

[miz miranda]

While both misogyny and transphobia exist and sometimes shared within the same person, I don't see them as specifically associated with the potential overturning of roe vs wade.

 

If you're inclined to study the original ruling, it may provide insights on the decision as well as how the supreme court adjudicates. One can find the ruling at the link below, it is tedious reading but does add insight and you will probably find some information you were aware..

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)

 

I'm not going place and political thinking / positioning on the topic. I will say that I believe it is possible to be against abortion for moral reasons, but generally filled with inconsistent logic. I am personally uncomfortable with euthanasia, which I include Capital Punishment (death penalty),  and assisted suicide. I find illogical when people are for/against only some of them. While I would be hard pressed to decide on any one of those, I don't believe in an absolute prohibition of any of these cases.

 

I look at the current attack on Roe as equivalent to Prohibition in a moral imposition on society as a whole. In my view there are 3 fundamental aspects of liberty and human rights involved:

Do woman have the right to determine whether or not to have children without interference from government?

Do children have rights?

Does a fetus have rights?

There are also government powers at question.

Can states/federal govt regulate medical procedures and medical providers?

Can states/federal govt mandate medical treatment?

 

The clear reality is that we have had abortion decriminalized for  nearly 50 years now. America has not ended and there isn't a compelling argument of societal harm. Abortion supporters failed to codify access to abortion into law since Roe largely due to a lack of political will. It was easier to give verbal support without having to vote for the law. The solution is to push for such a law at the federal level, preferably at the constitutional level blocking a path for states ability to claim that this is a state power.

 

Political arguments and demonization does not address the issue .

[Jeanette West]

Women have always had the right to do whatever they wanted with their bodies, those that wanted, just wanted abortion to be legal so they wouldn't have to be held responsible for their own actions.

That is all. No-one seems to be making a big fuss over prostitution? That seems odd, yes?

 

[Ivy]

10 hours ago, Jeanette West said:

Women have always had the right to do whatever they wanted with their bodies, those that wanted, just wanted abortion to be legal so they wouldn't have to be held responsible for their own actions.

I'm not sure I understand your point.  A woman could abort a pregnancy, but she would face legal repercussions.  So she did have "control"?  

 

10 hours ago, Jeanette West said:

No-one seems to be making a big fuss over prostitution? That seems odd, yes?

Will never stop anyway.   Also it "benefits" men.  They can have what they want without the responsibility.  

[Mx.Drago]

On 5/12/2022 at 9:08 PM, Jeanette West said:

Women have always had the right to do whatever they wanted with their bodies, those that wanted, just wanted abortion to be legal so they wouldn't have to be held responsible for their own actions.

That is all. No-one seems to be making a big fuss over prostitution? That seems odd, yes?

 

 

I'm getting the feeling you don't care much for reality and facts, also you failed your history check with a critical failure. 😑

 

 

 

[VickySGV]

Quote

RULE  6  The following behavior is strictly forbidden everywhere on the site: flame wars, trolling, deliberately provoking arguments, intentionally insulting others or yourself. . . you get the idea.

 

This topic has become Politically Divided to some extent and so I have moved it to that forum.  Rule 6 applies even in the Politics topics

[Marcie Jensen]

Wow. This is a topic that sure sparks some deep seated opinions. And, yes, it's political. @VickySGVis absolutely correct on that. And, that's a shame for a number of reasons--mostly because it limits civil discourse. Which is always problematic when dealing with controversial issues.

 

I can only offer a few thoughts here, and I am NOT taking sides, as I am deeply torn on this. You see, my Christian faith is in direct conflict with my liberterian politics. The former demands I adhere to the sanctity of life, while the latter demands I keep government as small and inoffensive as possible while not interfering in anyone else's lif4e decisions. So long as those decisions don't hurt anyone else.

 

To begin, the phrase, and I beg everyone's pardon if this is too blunt "religio9us myths of immortality" is deeply insulting to people of faith, regardless of what it is. while4 we may all disagree as to the existence and/or immortal soul, that something that is deeply held by many folks, and dismissing it as myth simply because one4 holds a different opinion that can neither be proved nor disproved is wrong, imho.

 

Now, as to the arguments for and against abortion, I will agree that misogyny likely plays a part. I also agree that thee most strident voices against abortion come from conservative religious groups and thee political right.  Just as those who favor abortion come from the left of the political spectrum. and rational discussion has become impossible due to the sloganeering and pandering both sides do to gain votes from their base. Sad.

 

Now, on to the facts that I've been able to research about this. I began by actually reading the leaked opinion and I was surprised by what it said. The gist of the SCOTUS opinion is simply that Roe was bad law and cited legal opinions from both sides, and that what the justice are doing is sending the decision back to the states because this is one of the powers the constitution reserves for "the several states." I am neither a layer nor a constitutional law expert so I will wait and see what happens. And, thus, it doesn't "end" abortion; each state has the authority to make a decision on the matter. which will enrage folks on both sides of the question. We don't have4 to like it. We do have to accept it.

 

@miz mirandaasks some key questions and makes an excelle4nt point when she says, "The solution is to push for such a law at the federal level, preferably at the constitutional level blocking a path for states ability to claim that this is a state power." Sadly, if this comes to pass due to federal statute as opposed to constitutional amendment, there will be countless lawsuits from activists on both sides. A constitutional amendment appears to be the answer, but, that's likely not viable, as it requir4es 2/3 of both the house and senate to vote for it followed y 75% of the state legislatures--38 states--to ratify it. Note the difference between State legislatures and voters! Big difference there... If you doubt this, look at what happened to the4 Equal Rights Amendment back in 1972.  While it got 38 votes, it's still tied up in litigation.

 

As to the sanctity of life and gun sales argument, well that's an interesting take. Speaking as a combat veteran, it gives me pause because I've4 had to take human life. I'm not proud of it, nor can I justify it. I won't try. It's wrong. That's why I'm opposed to capital punishment. I would point out that humans have been killing each other for countless millennia before firearms came about.  So, I don't see the connection. A gun is a tool nothing more. So are spears clubs, swords, axe and so on. They've all been used or killing. Killing someone doesn't depend on the tool; it depends on the heart of the killer

 

That said, the argument that no one needs to get pregnant in today's society doesn't hold much water eith4er because at the end of the day, it discounts incest, rape, medical needs of the mother and so on. 

 

Which in turn leads us to the critical question that neither science nor public opinion can answer. Namely when doe life begin? followed by its corollary, at what point does that life become human? I've seen too many studies that contradict each other on those two questions, so I'm not prepared to answer for anyone else.

 

I do know that people are passionate about this issue and that both major political pa5rties ibn this country will try to exploit it for political gain this November. And with that, I will say again, I've no position on this issue due to my internal conflict about it. It just seems to me that  this is too large an issue to reduce to slogans and blanket positions. We need more facts and civil discussion.

 

Sorry about how lengthy this became It sorta got a bit beyond my control.

[Marcie Jensen]

I apologize4 for the typos in the previous post. Just had my nails done and now I can't type...

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Marcie Jensen said:

Just had my nails done and now I can't type...

I haven't had them done and can't type anyway.

[Ivy]

I would have a hard time arguing for abortion.  But I also think we should have the privacy to make our own decisions.

 

If the argument against it is based on religious principles, (right or wrong) it seems that the government - state or federal - should stay out of it.

 

It gets tricky.  It can be argued that an IUD causes an abortion.  So should they be outlawed?

 

Is an abortion outright murder?  Should there be a funeral every time a woman (or trans man) has their period?  What about "plan B"?  

What if I give someone a ride to the clinic?  Does that make me a murderer?

 

Is it hypocritical to insist on carrying a child to term, but refusing to provide pre or post natal health care?

 

When does "life" actually begin?  I find myself wondering what "life" is to start with.  Can it be created or ended?  Or is it something that just exists?  Is death the end, or birth the beginning?  Is "life" consciousness, or something more?

 

As Dr Seuss said "Oh the thinks you can think…"

[Ivy]

Of course part of the problem with the leak is that the reasoning behind it (as was mentioned) can be used to do away with other rights that some people don't want others to have.

It was claimed that that won't happen.   But yeah, sure, of course not.