“If You Can’t Afford Your Children, You Shouldn’t Have Them?” Racism, Sexism and Eugenics Inform Both Sides of the Abortion Debate August 26, 2009Posted by FCM in health, kids, liberal dickwads, politics, race.
Tags: abortion, eugenics, misogyny, progressive, racism
Gotta Do More Than Drive Your GF’s to the Clinic, Guys.
the author of the book “Liberal Fascism,” an unabashedly conservative tome, (NY Times review here) describes a pattern and a history of liberal progressives in this country seeing abortion and birth control as a “solution” to the social problems of disease, poverty, and even “idiocy.” despite the odiousness of the author’s apparent denial of his own party’s racist and sexist history, even the most ardent liberal must concede that at one point in american history, there were eugenicists who self-identified as progressives. but do the eugenicists’ arguments continue on in modern progressive discourse, today?
in a word: yes. yes they do.
rich, white women have always been in a position of relative privilege to even see abortion as a positive in their lives, or as a “choice” they might actually make. not coincidentally, thats precisely the tack the american feminist movement has historically taken: primarily rich, white feminists correctly recognized that the choice to abort was required to preserve their autonomy and personhood. meanwhile, poor, black, and disabled women were being made to undergo forced abortions and sterilizations, and weren’t allowed to procreate, even when they wanted to:
The United States [undertook] compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics. […] The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. Native Americans, as well as African-American women, were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). (wiki.)
where a “good” liberal progressive would never think to drop the N-bomb in public, they seem to have very little problem repackaging the same old racist and sexist eugenicists’ arguments in new economic terms: “if you cant afford children, you shouldnt have them.” but african and other cultures place a high value on motherhood and childbearning for women, regardless of whether their children are “afforded”. perhaps not surprisingly, some african-american women share those values, but womens desires and cultural values are not adequately addressed by drawing an econimic line in the sand. and considering the traditionalist leanings of the conservatives, we cannot ignore the probability that these -isms are informing both camps in the the ultimate so-called “womens issue.”
of course, framing procreation and financial support as a “womens issue” is problematic, in itself. in reality, reproduction is both a womens issue and a mens issue. and there are millions of americans that cannot objectively “afford” their children, and billions more, world wide. women are poorer than average than are men, particularly after they have children. and who can and cannot “afford” anything falls along social and political lines of race and class.
so as long as self-identified liberal progressives continue to attack women with misogynist sexual slurs, and use repulsive racist and sexist images to advance their “liberal” – mens – agenda, any thinking human will necessarily question a man who is all too eager to support “womens rights” (in that case, a euphemism for abortion generally) or more specifically, his own current or potential pregnant girlfriend’s “right” to…not mortgage his future with responsibility, and to not burden his finances with child support payments. and couching the “problem” of poverty in terms of who can and cannot afford their children, without examining the social, sexual and political power structures that made it that way, must be recognized as the racist and sexist cop-out it really is.