"I decided to break the law to provide a necessary medical service because women were dying at the hands of butchers and incompetent quacks, and there was no one there to help them. The law was barbarous, cruel and unjust. I had been in a concentration camp, and I knew what suffering was. If I can ease suffering, I feel perfectly justified in doing so."
Dr. Henry Morgentaler, a Canadian doctor who was arrested four times for performing abortions, but whose arrests eventually led to the 1988 Canadian Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the country. He died this week at the age of 90. Good obit in the NY Times.
i have no problem with pointing out that anyone of any gender can be an abuser, rapist, pedophile etc because that’s absolutely true.
but the problem with always emphasizing “yes but it happens to everyone, not just women (or people of colour, or trans* people, etc)!” is that it depoliticizes the issue.
violence is not an accident, it is reflective of social power relations that permeate society at every level
moss flowers: cupcakesnotbombs: robot-heart-politics: yuriadventure: One of the most... →
One of the most ridiculous concepts that society promotes is that we should always consider “the other side”, that we should always compromise, that the truth is always “in the middle. The problem with this is that it ignores how many stances and opinions are completely not compatible with each other.
Feminism, anti-racism, and other similar issues are not a friendly debate. They are a struggle that’s life and death for millions (or, realistically, billions) of people. They are struggles whose only eventual outcome is the eradication of what they fight against (patriarchy, white supremacy, etc). There is no compromise, there is no “truth in the middle”, and there’s certainly no “agree to disagree” about it. Either patriarchy is abolished completely or it isn’t at all; either white supremacy becomes a ridiculous relic of the past as it should be or people of color continue to suffer or be murdered in its name.
These movements can’t “consider the other side” because the other side is actively trying to eradicate them and dehumanize their participants. To agree to be dehumanized under new conditions is not acceptable.MRAs and “equalists” often wonder why feminists won’t debate them, but it’s because they don’t understand that they’re the enemy, not a like-minded person with a different approach.
My humanity is not up for debate.
this, so much.
I have taken a fondness for Desmond Tutu’s quote, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
I am usually criticized for citing it as cultivating an “us versus them” mentality, which I guess is supposed to be bad? When arguing with someone that is for taking steps to correct racism and sexism, etc, but disagree on approaches, perhaps that is the case. But people who think that everything is just fine the way things sit are simply wrong.