Beautiful Cynicism III

Below, I’m excerpting an excellent article from Pandagon.net. It so clearly encapsulates not only my bafflement in the face of rabid anti-choicers, but also articulates better than I ever could my reasons for identifying with the pro-choice movement.

Perversely, I think that the anti-choice hatred of living is also based in a fear of death. Really living also provokes reminders of mortality. Roeder’s obsession with decay really shows how it works. Living means dying, getting closer to it every day. The expression we use to remind ourselves to really live our lives is “carpe diem”—”seize the day”. Unspoken, because you don’t have to speak it, is that you should seize today because tomorrow will not come. Not literally (for most of us), but the sense is that you cannot put off living your life until the future, because the future gets ever-briefer. Most of us are able to understand this, and we make our choices accordingly. We try to get our work done. We don’t stay in on Friday night. We figure we’ll take that chance on falling in love. There isn’t going to be an infinite amount of time to do these things, might as well start living now. Sometimes I think anti-choicers skip that step of understanding, and instead stave off fear of death by dwelling on the hope that not living will keep it away, that you can somehow purify yourself until death stops knocking. Not consciously, but subconsciously, it seems clear. Death is so scary, and so hopefully by denying living, death can be safely ignored.

At the link below, you will find an audio excerpt and transcript of an early “sermon” he delivered to the faithful. It makes my brain hurt, really it does. Follow the link at your peril; unicorn chaser highly recommended.

Since that day in 1989, December 6th has been known as Canada’s National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Violence exists in many forms, and claims many victims of every sex, gender, age, race, size, shape, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Yet this is a day to focus on the still oh-so-prevalent violence against women, a whole sub-class of violence that has existed since the dawn of humankind: the rapes, spousal abuse, sexual discrimination, human trafficking, prevention of access to abortions, the burqa, polygamous cults, sharia law, honour killings… Sadly, the list goes on.

Even amidst all the hatred, fear, and misunderstanding that exists in the world, Uganda’s proposed so-called anti-homosexuality bill is shocking. Even to those who peddle hate and deal in discrimination can’t bring themselves to endorse such legislation. Even to the jaded and the cynical, the bill’s language is incredible.

Uganda’s proposed legislation calls for:
- lifetime imprisonment if “convicted” of homosexual behaviour
- a new category of assault called “aggreviated homosexuality” if one partner is HIV-positive
- mandatory HIV testing
- a ban on LGBT bloggers expressing their opinions (considered “promoting homosexuality”)
- advocacy on behalf of LGBT groups; activism in this area would carry penalties of fines and 7 years’ imprisonment
- a duty to report suspected homosexual behaviour; one would face fines and up to 3 years’ imprisonment if one fails to report homosexual behaviour within 24 hours of discovering/witnessing it
- a ban on all same-sex relationships, including those entered into outside of Uganda by a Ugandan citizen; penalty would be lifetime imprisonment
- extradition of Ugandan citizens abroad who are involved in a same-sex relationship, to face relevant penalties in Uganda
- two new assault categories: “attempted homosexuality” where one person can claim to be a “victim” of homosexual behaviour; this is upped to the new category of “aggravated attempted homosexuality” if one partner is HIV-positive
- an explicit ban on same-sex marriage, including for Ugandan citizens living abroad in countries where same-sex marriage is legal
- creation of new charges of “aiding and abetting homosexuality” and “conspiracy to engage in homosexuality”, each carrying penalties of 7 years’ imprisonment
- ban on operating a brothel; penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment

It almost sounds comical; like a pathetic spoof of criminal law. Yet it’s unfortunately so very real…

Protester: Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy, why are you supporting it?

So much misinformation has been spewed about the Democrats’ health care reform bill that many Americans now seem to think the government is quite literally out to get them – as in, agents will sneak into your house at night and indoctrinate your children and kill grandpa in his sleep before stealing all your money from under the mattresses. Which is why the town hall meetings being held across the US have become quite frightening: many people literally believe they’re fighting for their lives. Machine guns brought to an ‘open dialogue’ with the president? Death panels choosing whose grandparents to murder? Government-financed health care equated to Nazism? Photographs of Obama doctored to look like Hitler? The worst part is, this is not a mere fringe element occupying the far ends of the political spectrum: this attitude is actually becoming mainstream.

While so many bright minds have come from the United States, nowadays I fear that entire country’s gone batshit insane. And I live right next door.

WTF? Required by law to lose one’s own identity? Whilst this may be expected of the right-wing radicals and wingnuts out on the extreme end of the political spectrum, what surprises me – nay, utterly shocks me – is that half of the survey’s respondents had this attitude. Even more shocking is the reasoning behind this opinion; when asked why women should be expected to change their names, an oft-cited response was (and this is a direct quotation) that “women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family.”

Double WTF… That this attitude is apparently still so pervasive in mainstream America depresses me more than I can express. And should serve as a wake-up call for those who bleat that sexism no longer exists, that full equality is a reality, and that the glass ceiling was broken long ago. As this study illustrates, a whole lot of people still believe that women should be not only willing but be forced by law to give up their own identities when they marry, subjugating their selves to their husbands. The woman as chattel, a mere blank slate over which the man has free hand. Sigh.

And just in case you think this is an isolated incident, not indicative of a trend, Feministing reminds us of a 2004 case where a Pennsylvania court rejected a petition from a woman who wanted her daughter to have a hyphenated last name; the court found it was in the girl’s “best interests” to have only her father’s name. As well as a case a few years ago in Washington, DC, where a couple was denied a birth certificate for their baby because they had elected to give the baby the mother’s name instead of the father’s.

The US, UK, EU, Canada, & Australia delegations at a World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) meeting in Geneva are currently attempting to block discussion of a treaty introduced by Brazil (and a few other South American countries) permitting certain exceptions from some copyright law for persons who are blind or who have other reading disabilities.

“The proposal for a treaty is supported by a large number of civil society NGOs, the World Blind Union, the National Federation of the Blind in the US, the International DAISY Consortium, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), Bookshare.Org, and groups representing persons with reading disabilities all around the world.