The Haves and the Have-It-Nots

[trinityvixen]

Reading the news is depressing me. Watching The Daily Show depresses me. Things I got hooked on during the election campaigns are now biting me at every turn. The only slim relief is to read the Op-Eds at The New York Times and feel like I'm not alone. There's all this stink about how the Democrats are out of touch with the people. Well, excuse me, very much, I'm one of those people that they are in touch with, even if I think their ability to apply themselves is sorely lacking. Basically, it's like being told I'm out of date all the goddamned time, and, even when people doing it rail against Bush, it doesn't fix the problem of me feeling like old news. If tomorrow's moving the way the Christian Right says it must, I would rather be old and fair than new and theocratic.

But I came to a recognition of my own yesterday, something most people already knew but which has really clarified things for me, and reassured me that, yes, I am a Democrat. When I think back on all the things I argued for keeping or protecting, almost none of them are rights or priveleges I would enjoy myself. I am pro-choice, but I almost certainly will never be in a situation where I am pregnant against my will (knock on wood) or inclination, and even still, I'm not sure I would go through with the abortion process. That's just my choice. I'm pro-gay marriage, but I don't intend to get married any time soon if at all, besides the fact that I'm not gay. Doesn't affect me, personally, if gay and lesbian couples can't wed, but it would hurt friends, and in the spirit of equality, I say let them wed, let them unionize, but recognize them, damn it. I'm pro-stem cell research, something which I potentially could benefit from, but most likley not in my lifetime, I would guess. It could be 50 years before that's possible, maybe more. DNA's only 50 years old, and do we know all there is to know about it? Believe it or not, stem cells may be infinitely more complicated, especially as to their clinical application. But I'm for the research. I'm ALWAYS for research. Study twice, decide once, Dubya.

I am fiscally conservative, which, honestly, can be quite selfish--why spend today what I'll have to pay a lot more for tomorrow? But more than that, I'm anti-tax cut right now, in favor of spending the money to arm our troops and protect our nation better, among other, you know, less important things than what brought most people to the polls (you know, stupid things like education, welfare reform, etc). I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security even though, as a younger person, that means I'm less likely to suffer as I will have a lifetime to provide for myself until I retire, versus those who would be older and still under the privatization cut-off. My real concern with that issue is the loss of benefits to people who would otherwise be funded by my generation, now not if we have our own investment portfolios in place of SS. Prescription drugs should be pushed aside for generics to the elderly, too, again, not directly affecting me. Health care, dental, yeah, I care about myself, but I'm pretty healthy and I'm not concerned with my immediate survival on those scores (at least, not now that I have the wisdom teeth out).

I thought about this. The big issues for me--mostly social issues--aren't my fight. They're someone else's rights that I want kept, expanded, protected, guaranteed. And that, to me, is the heart of America, the reason we disengaged from the colonizing empire and based our new nation on principles of freedom for all. If I fight as hard to protect your rights as I do my own, so long as our rights end where the other's begins, that's democracy, that's equality, that's liberty, and that is freedom.

Whereas the problem I have with Republicans is that they're the THOU SHALT NOT HAVE to my 'Have it, if you got it' attitude. It's an incredibly patronizing GOP these days, too, which is my No. 1 pet peeve in just about any situation. If someone talks down to me, tells me things are being done for my own good even though they're precisely what I don't want now or ever and pretends that it's better that I don't have what I want, I get really, really pissed. What's worse is the 'thou shalt not' attitude of the GOP has gone farther right such that when they tell me what I believe is wrong and evil, they add the fires of damnation to my denouncement.

THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS (Aka Republican Joe): they're wrong, and evil, and you're going to go to hell for destroying life!
Me: But I don't believe that something that can't live outside of a woman's body is alive. Talk to me about partial-birth in the third trimester, then I believe you find me more accomodating to this...
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: you're a murderer, and for corrupting others and spreading false word, you will burn in hell and every baby that dies will be on your head.
Me: It's not a baby.
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!
Me: Actually, the egg and sperm were alive before that. Still, the zygote that occurs after can't survive on its own. Therefore, it's an extension of the woman's body, practically a parasite, and hers to choose what she does with it.
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: You're responsible for all the damned souls that go and get abortions! You cannot wash your hands of your sin!
Me: But I don't believe that it is a sin.
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ABORTIONS: IT IS! WE WILL MAKE IT SO!

Etc. etc. etc. I might just have to have more of these THOU SHALT NOT v Me mock debates. It's a lot more cheering than, say, talking to an actual Republican. I'm still pissed and I would see smugness everywhere, especially, methinks, in a New York Republican.

Comments

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

The other thing I've considered is how to 'take back abortion' from the right-wing. They've painted it as dirty. They paint sex as dirty, as you said. They won't teach anything but abstinence, keeping with the theme of the 'thou shalt not' doctrines. If they would concede and teach REAL sex ed in all schools, that condoms work and 'loving someone enough' doesn't for example, abortion would be, I suspect less of a problem in general. We also need women who've had them to speak out. It's difficult because it's not something to be proud of. But rape isn't something to be proud of either, yet were women not to speak out, victims might suffer in silence, feeling alone and abandoned. The message should be 'you're not alone,' as it is with other sexually-oriented effects on a woman's life. It's hard to find a message that would work because it's not like gay pride, where you can come out and say, "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it" (oh, and let me get married, damn you!) And, to be honest, may pro-lifers would be outraged that any "You're not alone" campaign would be just that, a celebration of the murder of innocents etc etc.

That doesn't change the fact that we need more women to speak up about abortion, specifically women who've had them. These women don't have to be pro-choice, they can be, older and wiser now, anti-abortion. But let's get the experience stories from women who've been to the frontlines in this 'war' not just the rhetoric from the social justice equivalent of the chickenhawk. By the way, in case anyone didn't know by now, that means men? HANDS THE FUCK OFF. Some might find that approach unfair. Well, pregnancy and abortion being regulated by the government--90% men, at least--is unfair. Life is unfair. But abortion is, and always will be, primarily a woman's territory. Men can't understand it. If they want the babies they father, tough. They shouldn't have placed their spunk where it wasn't wanted. If they want those kids that bad, have them theirselves, why don't they? If men could get pregnant, abortion would never be challenged. Ever. As is, anti-abortion stigmatizing and campaigning and law making are just modern methods of repressing the woman's right to move toward equality. Men used to do it with the Bible...oh, well, not much has changed then.

[/mini-feminist rant]