Going both ways

[digitaldiscipline]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kergan-edwardsstout/romney-lgbt-rights_b_1980231.html

Politics is not black and white, but, on some issues, yes, there is a bright line.

Your dollars, gods, and bombs do not trump anyone's humanity. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.

I am a straight, white, professional American male; just about the most privileged position it's possible to inhabit.

And if I see anyone trying to defend this bastion of opportunity from women, from people of other races, from LGBTQ folks, from people who believe in minority religions or hold no faith at all... I believe you're wrong.

Privilege isn't a zero-sum game. It's a volcano breaking the ocean's surface and peeking above the waves, the rim of the caldera, yes, probably remaining somewhat above the surrounding new land, but more and more showing above the waves.

Don't be the waves, eroding opportunity and equality from people who ought to have it.

Don't deny people equal rights, equal opportunity, equal pay. Don't protect power and privilege because "that's how it's always been."

I have seen some pointed criticism of social-issues voting as being "juvenile," because the critic believes that reproductive rights (that is, the ability of a woman to have control of and agency over her body, despite what a man may want) and gay rights are somehow all about the fucking. It's not about sex, it's about freedom, and if critics are unwilling or unable to see that, I don't think anything I say will open any new eyes or change any minds.

Maybe something someone else, just as angry and maybe more erudite, wrote, would:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/

If you vote for people who do those things, I believe you're wrong.

And if you feel the same way about me, you won't be missed.

Comments

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

Something about the tone Scalzi used in that piece reminds me of a kindergarten teacher. Which is better than reminding me of my rapist. Maybe it's that or maybe it's because I think abortion should be a legal medical option no matter the circumstances of the conception, he didn't convince me that a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape and incest is somehow better than a ban on abortion with no exceptions.

I think the anti-abortion politicians are correct when they say that if abortion were only legal in cases of rape and incest, there are women would falsely claim rape or incest in order to have a legal procedure performed by a trained doctor. I know I would only hesitate if the rapist had to be identified or, worse, convicted. Because right now I do not want to be raisin' no babies and chances of me having a baby healthy enough to be adopted into a good home is pretty much nil.

[cassandrasimplx.livejournal.com]

...maybe it's because I think abortion should be a legal medical option no matter the circumstances of the conception, he didn't convince me that a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape and incest is somehow better than a ban on abortion with no exceptions.

That may very well be the reason. I mean that literally, without criticism of you for it.

Scalzi was specifically targeting people who believe in a ban with no exceptions and the common claim that such a unilateral ban does not remove any right a woman has a valid claim to. His broader point is that any stance that dictates when a woman may or may not terminate a pregnancy is a stance that seeks to control an aspect of life that should be left to the individual to decide, but his specific purpose is restated clearly in the comments, in response to a critic:

“you have shut off the discussion on the main reason why a vast majority of people may disagree with your view.”

Actually, I have forced them to confront a question that they are otherwise easily able to avoid, and therefore do.

This is consistent with his statements opening the comment section that lay down extra ground rules about not allowing the discussion to stray to a broader discussion of abortion in all or other cases; he is forcing the discussion to remain within the framework of a scenario that explicitly casts the debate in terms of who has control of a woman's life when abortion is restricted, and disallowing examination of things like pregnancy resulting from consensual sex prevents certain rhetorical dodges like "she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want to get pregnant," which reframe abortion argumentation in (slut-shaming) sexual-morality terms instead of forcing proponents of abortion bans to confront the underlying issue of governmental control of individual autonomous bodies and lives.

I agree with you that "abortion should be a legal medical option no matter the circumstances," but I thought his argument placed a neat foot in the door for that greater one: if one can see how in this case, the government is assisting a rapist in taking greater control of a woman's body and life than the woman herself is allowed to have, how is it better for the government to control those same decisions when there's no (implied: other) rapist involved? That objection, inverted, comes up defensively several times in the comments, and each time Scalzi has had to wrench the conversation back to his limited scenario because (for reasons that alternately baffle and, when I think I understand them, disgust me) this is the stance that pro-life activists least want to talk about and must stretch extrapolations from other philosophical positions to justify holding.

I'm not intending to criticize your own political opinion here at all, just offering the viewpoint from which I thought the piece worked well as rhetoric.

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

Thank you for replying in such detail. It is definitely emotionally difficult for me to stay within Scalzi's tightly defined framework of this particular argument. I keep making the jump from "the government shouldn't be facilitating the rapist's control over the woman's body" to "the government shouldn't be controlling women's bodies".

[etcet.livejournal.com]

The government shouldn't be controlling anyone's bodies.

My stance on sexual legislation boils down to "You can fuck whomever you want, as long as they're able to consent to it." Not exactly complicated stuff, but there is a lot of pushback from very noisy religious quarters and creepy reddit neckbeardy ones.

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

This is a bit long, but I like the way it takes on the pro-lifers on the issue of saving the babies.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html