• commentary
  • TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 4 2007 4:00 PM

Newsflash: Women Are People

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by Bitch_PhD

Tags: feminism, amnesty international, reproductive rights, abortion


The news that Amnesty International has decided to support abortion access as a basic human right is, hopefully, not news to anyone reading this. But I'm linking to it now because there's a statement in this article, about their affirming that decision last month in Mexico, because there's a really, really awesome pull quote from Amnesty's senior director for international legal issues that I think should be made into samplers, throw pillows, tattoos, bumper stickers, buttons, and tshirts and spread far and wide.

We can't as an organization look only at human rights issues that implicate men.



Bin. Go.

And that, my friends, is the problem with the "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist" argument. There are some human rights issues that are specific to women (albeit with indirect effects on men, what with men often being in relationships with women and all). To try to duck that fact by appealing to some argument that "humanism" is inclusive while "feminism" is exclusive or exclusionary, well, what you're saying is that only things that affect men count, and that things that affect women, and specifically women, aren't inclusive enough.

In other words, if there's nothing in it for boys, it's not important.

To which all right-thinking people will say: go to hell.

Bitch_PhD figures that the Catholic Church made it obvious a long time ago that they don't consider women fully human.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Northron

Northron

I'm lost
November 2004

SEP 05, 2007 07:34 PM

Nice coathamger. I suppose all the good work AI has done amounts to nothing? Interesting, I last has this conversation when told that women were genetically superior due to their ability to function in pain during childbirth. Congratulations. Let me know when people with testicles are allowed an opinion.

DownNeck

DownNeck

Jersey City, NJ
March 2006

SEP 05, 2007 08:26 PM

Sick said:

RileyStClair said:

Sick said:

RileyStClair said:
in a perfect world sure, but there's no way around it since, as you say, either the kid is born or it's not--someone does not get their way. since the woman is more directly impacted than the man in every case, by virtue of biology, she must have the authority to make that choice. her rights trump his in this situation.

it may not be "fair", but life isn't fair.



Exactly. So why do we all talk about it in terms of gender equality, when it is gender unequal by it's very nature?



because what reproductive rights are held by women in a given society directly impacts the overall state of gender equality in that society.


All right; I'll accept that.

And I really don't have any problem with any of this, except too often it seems that when the inherent inequality favors women, it's all in the name of gender equality, but if it favors men, it's discrimination.

Ideally, at least to me, we would acknowledge that men and women are unequal in certain respects as a result of biology, not due to any failure of society. We should be treated equally when it's possible, and acknowledge our differences when it's not, yet still do our best to respect the rights of the other sex.

Ha! Listen to me; I sound like an idealist for once instead of a jaded, cynical realist.



you're a sick sick man. didn't you hear the lady? humanism is TEH DEBBIL!

seriously, though, i agree. that's a pretty sensible way to behave

brett54

brett54

Australia
November 2004

SEP 06, 2007 05:26 AM

edited


then gave up.

SuperCrunch

SuperCrunch

Birmingham, AL
January 2007

SEP 06, 2007 11:03 AM

Sick said:

RileyStClair said:

Sick said:

RileyStClair said:
in a perfect world sure, but there's no way around it since, as you say, either the kid is born or it's not--someone does not get their way. since the woman is more directly impacted than the man in every case, by virtue of biology, she must have the authority to make that choice. her rights trump his in this situation.

it may not be "fair", but life isn't fair.



Exactly. So why do we all talk about it in terms of gender equality, when it is gender unequal by it's very nature?



because what reproductive rights are held by women in a given society directly impacts the overall state of gender equality in that society.


All right; I'll accept that.

And I really don't have any problem with any of this, except too often it seems that when the inherent inequality favors women, it's all in the name of gender equality, but if it favors men, it's discrimination.

Ideally, at least to me, we would acknowledge that men and women are unequal in certain respects as a result of biology, not due to any failure of society. We should be treated equally when it's possible, and acknowledge our differences when it's not, yet still do our best to respect the rights of the other sex.

Ha! Listen to me; I sound like an idealist for once instead of a jaded, cynical realist.



Thats all well and good and honestly I agree with you. We should be basing the laws that govern society on realistic assessments of the nature of the world. However, we have a very large group of people known as the religious right. And those motherfuckers will be damned if they continue to let us kill babies all willy nilly (or whatever the fuck they think).

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

Chicago, IL
January 2005

SEP 06, 2007 11:10 AM

Feminist is exclusionary just as humanist is not all inclusive.

There are differences between men and women, another newsflash.

As far as the decision to "let" women have access to abortion, Bravo!!!
See how easy it was to get in to the 21st Century just by changing your views.






Tallboy is a Masculinist.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

SEP 06, 2007 02:41 PM

Formus said:
I love the coathanger. I say we release a line of Bitch_PhD-endorsed coathanger clothing.



Heh, thanks. I think that's probably the absolute worst image I've ever done; I just could not get gimp to do what I wanted it to do for some reason.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

SEP 06, 2007 02:41 PM

InnocentSid said:


There are some human rights issues that are specific to women (albeit with indirect effects on men, what with men often being in relationships with women and all).


I hope that by relationships you meant beyond the usual amorous or just physical. I am surrounded by women in my career and my life. I have sisters, mother, aunts, mother-in-law, a btichin' wife, nieces, neighbors, bosses, editors, staffers and even a best friend that is female. As a guy I am not just interested in "women's issues" because I like to fuck a woman but because they shape my world and make it all worth it.



Yep. That's why I put it the way I did. Good catch.

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

SEP 06, 2007 03:38 PM

Re. the "why isn't humanist inclusive?" question, that's a matter of practical reality rather than idealism. It ought to be; but the "I'm a humanist, not a feminist" argument only ever gets brought up to explain why someone *isn't* a feminist. See a number of comments in this thread for further examples of why "humanism" isn't the catch-all term people who want to pretend that feminism is exclusionary like to think it is.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews