How Not To Defend Abortion

I'm on the fence about abortion. Why? Because I can see two competing virtues at play here. On the one hand, I completely understand the desire of a woman to, as Sandra Day O'Connor once put it, "define her own concept of existence". Self-autonomy is at the heart of liberty, and to whatever extent the state or anyone else limits that then a woman is not really free to live as it pleases her. On the other hand, I can understand those who have reservations about unrestricted abortion. Yes, women should have every right afforded them to control their bodies as they see fit, but let us not be daft- when a woman becomes pregnant, there is a new kind of "liberty" to consider. Like it or not, all biological life is conceived in and proceeds from a women. If there is no restriction at all on abortion, that essentially means that women are God. Now while I freely concede that this should be true up to a point, it might get a little dangerous if this is carried too far. There is a conflict of liberties here, whether we are talking about the woman's right to choose, or the "little liberty" that is growing inside her, and from my perspective it is not so easy to come down on one side or the other on this issue.

However, this entry is not so much about the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion as it is about the means by which some defend their position. In particular, I would like to question the nature of the protests that have been going on in the capital city of Texas. As a "cranky eagle" who looks to inspire tolerance and logical coherence in our modern discourse, I am pleased to see with what enthusiasm people like Congresswoman Wendy Davis have spoken out in defense of the pro-choice side. For those unfamiliar, the Texas state legislature attempted (and eventually succeeded) to pass an anti-choice bill during a recent session that would seek to ban abortions beyond the twentieth week of pregnancy. In the process some like Wendy Davis stepped and used their power to try to filibuster the legislation. In the mean time she became quite famous for showing up to the "standoff" in her bright neon running shoes. The symbol of the sneakers beautifully represents the idea that she is running a race and that she is there for the long haul. Excellent!

Yet there were some protesters that I would argue not only contradict this spirit of protest, but actually wind up speaking out in a way that works completely against their agenda. Look, I am no more a fan of those "abortion is murder" signs than you are. Neither do I much care for all of those gory pictures of aborted fetuses. But regardless of what you or I may think about that, at least the message is directly connected to the point of the message. 'Fetuses are human beings, and if they are then we should stop killing them.' Whereas many of the protesters in Texas and in other places seem to be going out of their way to insult people rather than convince them of the virtues of reproductive health. For example this sign:

Or what about these:

One might agree one hundred percent with these sentiments, but it is curious why some feel it is a compelling argument to place vulgar signs in the hands of the youngest and most innocent children as a means to convey the nobility of their cause. Ugliness like this doesn't convince me of the good of a position, rather it convinces me that there may be something fundamentally disturbed about the people who conceive it. The anti-choice crowd shows disturbing pictures because they believe that something disturbing is going on and want to  draw your attention to it. The pro-choice side (at least as represented here) wants to draw your attention to something disturbing, but the way they go about it winds up distracting you from what it is that they're saying in the first place. What they are trying to say is that abortion is a decision that is as intimate as it gets, and it is a vulgar and disgusting thing to have a politician make that decision for you. If they had just said this then they might get a more sympathetic ear, but instead they decided to hand a child a poster with the words "dick", "vagina", "Jesus", and something about f@*%$#* a Senator, and instead of converts to their side, we're all wondering where DSS is.

But the problem with these protestors is not simply that they are vulgar, the problem is they are self-contradictory as well. According to some reports of those on the ground at the Texas state house (which was later confirmed), some of the protestors actually wanted to throw and/or threaten politicians with various used "feminine sanitary napkins". First of all, whatever one might have been trying to say about abortion before this, now becomes unintelligible through all of the "ewww" and the "blah blah blah, used tampon". But secondly, and more importantly, it doesn't make any logical sense to do it. Even some in the media have taken up this cause, and in one particular instance a journalist actually used a pair of tampons as earrings. When I was a kid we used to use live lizards as earrings, and I thought that was strange, but how about this?

What does a woman's menstrual flow have to do with controlling her reproductive rights anyway? Nothing. The fact that a woman bleeds is a sign of her health and fertility, not the termination of a pregnancy, much less the prevention of her ovulation. I suppose if a woman wanted to protest a law which restricts her reproductive freedom, perhaps it would make more logical sense to instead turn her birth control pills into a hipster bracelet or something. At least in that instance it would be more in keeping with the idea of woman controlling her body. One can only hope that the next time there is such a protest on behalf of an issue such as this, some of the suggestions that I have put forth here will be taken into consideration. Indeed, one can only hope that at future events, instead of having to listen some twenty something year old girl yell "Hail Satan" as she threatens you with a used tampon, we might actually get some real discourse. A man can at least dream can't he?

              
      

Marriage Equality Yes! Gay Rage, No!

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I am defender of gay rights, perhaps even to a fault. However, what I am not a defender of is hypocrisy. As it says in my mission statement, this blog was created in an attempt to express three virtues: open-mindedness, tolerance, and logical coherence. In previous posts I have gone out of my way to argue for more positive imagery for homosexuals on TV and in movies, as well as greater tolerance in our society as a whole when it comes to all types of sexual options. So obviously I am not one to chastise the gay community, that is, unless they fail to live by their own standards.

One of the selling points of the gay civil rights movement has been love and tolerance, and I am with them all the way on that one. A man (or woman) should be able to love and live in peace in whatever way they see fit without experiencing any direct verbal or physical threats to their person. I think we are all in agreement so far. But recently I have seen a kind of behavior shift that seems to be at odds with this much celebrated rallying cry. Indeed, a movement that once boasted a kinship with Martin Luther King Jr., has begun to look more and more like the Black Panthers.

At first when people began to suggest this to me, I dismissed it as sour grapes over the recent victories in favor of the LGBTQ community. However, as I began to investigate these claims further, I found something more than a little bit disturbing. Those who had formerly decried the mindless hate of the anti-gay crowd for bullying, were now "mindlessly" doing the same. And those who claimed that religious people had no rational basis for being against gay marriage, were now rejecting rational argumentation altogether and replacing it with vicious ad hominem attacks.

Where have I experienced this, you might ask? I decided to conduct a little experiment. Other than paying a little closer attention to the lengthy Facebook threads that are out there on the subject, I myself decided to play the devil's advocate in some discussions of my own. I certainly was under no illusion that the arguments would be pleasant, but I did for my own part commit myself to speaking in as respectful a manner as possible. My expectation was that it would difficult, but that for the most part people would be relatively cordial and avoid attacking me. Boy was I wrong! After a few of those conversations, I myself felt like I needed one of those "It Gets Better" commercials if only to avoid my own despair.

It wasn't simply that they disagreed with me or called me a bigot for taking the position I took. It was the level of vitriol that both terrified and wounded me. I was thinking to myself 'here I am speaking to a group of people that should be relatively happy (or gay if you will) at the direction our culture is taking', but instead of feeling elated, they were quite literally hurling verbal bile at me. In fact, the most popular insult seemed to involve (for whatever reason) human feces. My personal favorites were being regarded as a human colonoscopy bag, as well as a steaming pile of shit. Obviously this happens on both sides of the aisle, but before all of this happened to me, I had always assumed that it was primarily anti-gay bigots who did this stuff. But what I found in conducting this experiment was not just that a few people were expressing this so called "gay rage", but that in the midst of all this ugliness, plenty of others felt inclined to join in the ugly affair. Very few, if any, stepped in and asked people to tone it down. If their gay friends said something vile, they either did so themselves, or pretended like nothing ugly had happened, and instead just "liked" everything that was said on behalf of gays.                    

Just to give you an idea, my "debates" generally went something like this; "(me) I disagree with gay marriage because I think the role of the family.... blah blah blah. (them) Shut up you f'ing colonoscopy bag." Rarely did anyone actually address my arguments without the conversation descending into some form of personal attack. My larger point is simply this: I want to support gay rights without reservation. Why? a) I want people to be happy, whoever they are; b) Supporting the LGBTQ community always seemed to me the most loving and tolerant position to take, especially considering their all-embracing credo. However, in light of my experience I now have some doubts. First, if this lifestyle and belief system is so liberating and freeing, then why do its proponents behave like rabid animals in the presence of reasoned argumentation? Secondly, if defending gay rights is really about peace, love, and tolerance, then why weren't these people at least willing to listen to someone else's view on the matter (and no I am not talking about the type of person who threatens them with hell fire)? Look, obviously there are gay men and women who don't fall under the previously mentioned category, but then where were they in the midst of these conversations that I both observed and participated in. If the LGBTQ community won their argument with the public based on an appeal of love, tolerance, and equality, then let them rise and fall on that glorious platform and I will stand right with them. But if they start behaving like those dreadful Westboro Baptist hate-mongers, I can do little else than declare that they are in truth no better than those heterosexist bigots that they themselves are so quick to condemn.      

Bisexuality: The Forgotten Orientation

I suppose it was inevitable, especially considering the "B" is the middle letter in the commonly used acronym LGBTQ. However, it is nevertheless unacceptable that homosexuals receive all of the positive attention, while some other "letters" are sent to the back of the bus, so to speak. Understandably, there has been a great deal of celebration surrounding the recent Supreme Court decision regarding DOMA, not to mention the news coming out of England that the Queen will not stand in the way of the legalization of gay marriage in Great Britain. But enough already with the excessive focus on homosexuals! After all, there are a few other important groups who are no less worthy of receiving a similar vindication.

Back in 1992, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor helped pave the way for the historical June ruling on same-sex marriage, when she stated in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood; "...at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence..." In essence she was saying that there is no universal moral law other than the one that we choose for ourselves. Therefore, in as far as the state is capable, the state should support the individual in defining their own existence. And since the state has chosen to define reality based each individual's conception of it, I for one can do none other than to speak out for those whose conception of reality declares that their heart and body cries out not for one sex, but two.

Interestingly, those who tend to discriminate the most against bisexuals are not in fact heterosexuals. Oftentimes it is homosexuals who look askance at the bisexual community. Indeed, they seem to regard bisexuals as a kind of fraudulent version of themselves, as if they were simply trying to play both sides of the fence, never really committing to one or the other. Perhaps they even view them as a kind of threat to the furtherance of their ideology, believing that they (homosexuals) alone hold the exclusive rights to the third gender moniker. But whatever the case, this post is dedicated to those who feel marginalized because their heart is too big to consign it to only one sex. Therefore, it is my contention that if homosexuals wish to marry their own sex, let them do so, and if transexuals wish to identify themselves as the opposite sex, then let them do so, and yes, if bisexuals wish to say that they do not wish to have their love limited to one gender, then why must they choose between the two? Obviously this opens a whole other can of worms about polygamy and polyamory, etc. etc., but so be it. If we as a society have concluded that it is acceptable that we "define our own concept of existence," then let us go about the business of doing it! What are waiting for?          

What's Up With All This "Hooker" Chic?

There is a practice that is becoming all the rage these days among young women: I call it "hooker chic". There are many ways in which this trend manifests itself, but for now let us content ourselves to focus on the manner in which college age kids are taking it to a new level of acceptance. Indeed, it has become highly fashionable to throw parties where girls dress like prostitutes and the guys like pimps (or some other kind of seedy looking character). Setting aside what this says about the boys (who are more than happy to oblige), let us consider how this phenomenon plays out among the girls. I have no desire to judge the morality or immorality of this trend. The question I want to ask is whether or not this increasingly popular practice is consistent with the social reality of what it means to be a hooker. I feel this is an important question because I feel the distinction between playing "hooker dress-up" for a party, and the way young girls dress in general is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish. If society is at peace with the two being indistinguishable, then so be it, but before such personal attire (and no doubt behavior) becomes entirely acceptable, it might be a useful exercise to ask ourselves if we are in fact aware of where our ideas go (and have gone) in this respect.

At this stage, few, if any, fathers want their daughters to grow up selling their sexual services for money. Nevertheless, many fathers today seem a bit naive when it comes to the slippery slope of fashion trends. As for the girls, perhaps they simply want an excuse to dress provocatively and be ogled under a slightly more dignified banner. But the truth behind all this hooker chic is as follows: most people still regard the business of prostitution as something shameful and sad, especially if they have ever known anything about life on the streets- much less seen the effect that such a life might have on the one who lives it. Therefore, I have no problem if society collectively decides it wants women to dress as prostitutes. However if they do accept this practice, they should do it on the grounds that these young ladies (and older) appear in such a way which is consistent with what a prostitute actually looks like. Many prostitutes are the furthest thing from sexy- in fact, they boast an appearance that only the most desperate man would find sexually appealing. Many prostitutes look starved because they spend whatever money they have on drugs and not food. They are often beaten and abused by their pimp, or by the one who pays them for their services. Moreover, most of them do not possess any sort of dental plan, so quite frequently their teeth are not in the best condition (to say the least). So if they want to dress as prostitutes when they are going to a party, then let them fit this description.

Now some may argue that perhaps these young girls simply want to shoot for a 'hooker look" that is a little more high end- like say the girl who had an arrangement with the former governor of New York, Elliot Spitzer (I believe her name was Ashley Dupre). But however exalted that prostitute may be, society still regards a young woman selling her body for cash with a certain degree of uneasiness.  Fairly or not, most view such a way of life for young women as nothing short of tragic and abysmal. To further highlight this point, can you imagine anyone, even girls who are inspired by hooker chic, who want to be mistaken for a prostitute? Thus, if we are going to deem such exhibitions as sexy and acceptable in the context of a party, then why not other things that we deem to be shameful? If it is acceptable to make a prostitute appealing, why should it be regarded as evil to make make Nazis attractive, as David Bowie apparently once attempted to do in the 70's? What about pedophile chic? Cannibal chic? Take anything in our society that is considered vile and unacceptable and imagine a party dedicated to glamorizing it. Imagine a ceremony of the KKK, with a bunch of white men laughing as they perform mock hangings. Like I said, I am not saying that young women dressing as whores is right or wrong. What I am suggesting is that if that is acceptable, then we should also let the rest of society celebrate and take delight in (without judgment) all of the things that we regard as a society to be most deplorable.  

            

Why Are TV Shows With Gay Characters So Homophobic?

Riddle me this Batman. Why is it that TV shows that are so frequently praised for having gay characters are not equally criticized for stereotyping gays? A few years back when the show Ugly Betty was in its prime, it received all sorts of positive attention for its portrayal of gays, but look at who the main gay characters were. One was an assistant named Mark who behaved like a little adolescent girl obsessed about his sartorial situation. And then there was his female boss who treated him like a domineering mother, or rather some well-established woman with her lap dog. What they are trying to imply here I think is that there is some sort of universal stereotype to be applied for all gay men. And then there is Betty's adolescent nephew who not surprisingly (if you watch the show) turns out to be gay, but he too is as predictable as the former. What does he love? Drum roll... you got it: shoes and fashion. What is he terrible at?  You guessed it- sports.

Or what about the show Arrested Development which has found such underground (and now overground) success? This show even boasts an openly gay actress, Portia De Rossi, who is notably married to Ellen Degeneres. But in spite of all of that, the show perpetuates all of the typical negative homosexual stereotypes. For example, one of the central characters named Tobias, though not technically "out" on the show, is presumed to be gay by the rest of the characters. Why? Because beyond making any number of masturbatory references, he is impotent, girly, and utterly ineffectual in everything he does. And furthermore, whenever the other characters in whatever context bring up homosexuality, it is purely as a joke (think sailors and S&M). But this sort of dismissive homophobia is nothing new. In fact, it has been going on ever since shows like Will and Grace set out to "liberate" homosexuals from negative stereotypes. Yet all they wind up doing is perpetuating the mockery.

The real question is: what does all this mean? Are these shows suggesting that the only way to distinguish a homosexual man is by emphasizing his love of shoes and highlighting his adolescent narcissism? Are they afraid that no one would notice the difference between a gay character and straight one, unless the gay one was constantly reminding everyone just how gay he was- with all those not so subtle sexual references? Imagine if every heterosexual character were as randy as Charlie Sheen all the time? Well, that is precisely what practically every single gay male character is like on TV and in movies. It is as if they think that this is the only thing that defines a homosexual. Perhaps now would be  as good a time as any for someone from the homosexual community to come forward and help us to do just that, lest everyone else comes to believe that the only thing that distinguishes a homosexual man is his desire for sex with a man, and his love for shoes.