I know that many members of the feministing community are ideologically pro-choice. However, the reality of being an abortion provider is that, ideology often leaves you out in the cold.
As abortion providers we are expected to keep our mouths closed, our heads down and our actions in line with whatever political agenda will have us. The thinking seems to be that since the "pro-choice" candidates know that they are our only option, acknowledging us as real people is unnecessary. We are treated as second class citizens, untouchables, who should never burden society with our "disgraceful" existence until they need us.
I know that this is not everyone. There are some very vocal and appreciative pro-choice supporters, but it is a lot of people- feminists included.
This post was prompted by a series of events taking place at the abortion clinic where I work.
With the looming gubernatorial election in Virginia the director of my clinic made a decision to publicly support Creigh Deeds (the only pro-choice candidate) with two small yard signs near the road. This was brought to light by conservative blogger Tom White, who incited the public to intimidate our clinic into removing our signs by honking and making harassing phone calls. We've even recieved phone calls from "pro-choice" individuals who say we are doing more harm than good.
The thing is, we are not spineless weaklings who will acquiesce to bullies. Why is everyone so afraid of this anti-choice blogger? Have people really been brainwashed so much that they are afraid to stand up to a little opposition?
Unfortunately, the signs were stolen, which gave White the notion of victory. Unwilling to concede to such bullying, we went about requesting more signs. To our surprise, the Deeds campaign wished to distance itself from such a "lightening rod" as our clinic.
I relayed this chain of events yesterday on feministing community, and was subsequently told to "shut the fuck up" because there are more important issues.
Interestingly, White reads feministing.com daily, and my community post found its way over to his blog. He proceeded to commend Don Marks of the Deeds campaign for making such a prudent decision, adding that the decision to place the signs was a "security threat" and that some rights were just, "too controversial" to be freely exercised.
So far there has been no further response from the Deeds campaign. We put signs back up anyway. They are huge, DIY, hot pink signs endorsing Deeds for governor, and they are amazing.
We will not be silenced.
We will not be marginalized.
We are a buisness like any other, with the right to endorse any political candidate we see fit.
Are you with us in reality, or just ideologically? Do you support our right to choose? To be heard?
We support yours everyday.
** Also, because I can see this coming, we are not trying to "raise the profile of abortion" in Virginia. Deeds has made several statements on the issue and attempted to call the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell , out on his anti-choice, anti-contraception position. We haven't made any kind of public statement about abortion in Virginia. The only thing we did was put up some signs that said "Deeds for Governor".
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Marginalized By Our "Allies".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15730
As I understand, your organization has every right to support who you wish. If you were a government agency, then I can understand the policies in place that require one to officially refrain from taking sides in an impending election.
This is a massive case of knee-jerk reaction and letting emotion override common sense, rational discourse, and logic.
And it's also an unfortunate case of people for whom the faintest hint of bad publicity will make them buckle at the knees. I saw that when I worked with school systems, who would sooner pay out of pocket and settle out of court than take utterly ridiculous complaints filed by parents to court, where they would have then likely been laughed out of the courtroom by the judge.
The path of least resistance has always been the easiest one, but in situations like these it reminds me that we can be quite hypocritical. We don't mind dishing out criticism, but god forbid it ever comes at us.
This is an emotional issue - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But in trying to win a political campaign, we, as pro-choicers, have to sometimes take a step back and understand the political nature of the campaign we're engaged in.
In this case, the Deeds campaign has to stay on message and the issues deemed most important to Virginia voters. By highlighting abortions as a major issue, we stand a chance of not being able to elect Deeds as governor. Historically, both Tim Kaine and Mark Warner ran on very centrist tickets, and that's the reason they won. They is absolutely nothing wrong with winning a pro-choice victory under the radar, which at this point, is what pro-choice Virgnians need to accept.
At the end of the day, I want to see Deeds win a political race, not an argument as to whether abortion rights ought to be expanded in Virgnia.
The best way you can support such effort is by helping with the campaign and staying on message. Democrats won Virginia in 2008 by community organizing, with good, solid canvassing and phone banking programs. We can win again, but it's going to take pro-choicers coming in and being willing to literally walk the walk - talking to their neighbors and fellow voters about issues important to those voters, rather than creating controversies and throwing the Deeds campaign under a bus.
I come home in a week for a little vacation, and pro-choice feminist that I am, I am going to shut up about abortion rights, write a check, and come in to help knock on doors, make phone calls, and do whatever the campaign needs to win. That's how we win, because sometimes, politics is not about us, but rather, the people we need to convince to cast a vote for our candidate of choice.
I support you, I appreciate you, and I am forever thankful for the work you do. But in the end, let's win with our minds, and not with our hearts.
Marc,
There's also a subset of voters that are moderate and excuse their support for McDonnell because they think that even though he's an extreme anti-choicer, he can't do anything because the Supreme Court sets abortion rights. They have no idea the degree of chipping away at rights, misinformation, and anti-contraception stuff that gets introduced in the state legislature and that the Governor could sign.
There are also other voters, especially many moderate or independent women voters, who don't feel strongly about abortion, but they do feel strongly about women's rights and they see Deeds' stand on abortion rights as a sign he cares about women, and they'll vote for Deeds based on that. Don't be afraid to bring up these issues if you're talking to someone, especially a woman, and you think that it could help.
From a political theory standpoint, I absolutely agree with you. But I think you're giving the average voter too much credit. The majority of voters - both women and men - do not think of issues that deeply. They only think of what's immediate and how it affects them.
A political campaign is not meant to be a college lecture, drawing in intellectual crowds who are capable of reason. It's more geared toward the Rush Limbaugh listening audience. Thus, strategies in political campaigns, while complicated in terms planning, are quite simple and vague when it comes to messages.
As such, it'd be more effective for us to stick to simple messages that will not rile up the lowest common denominators of society who are already going rabid at town hall meetings.
It'll be quite a nightmare if the abortion issue got brought up along with healthcare.
I'd say that this is immediate and does affect them-- at least, it affects anyone who's interested in ever having heterosexual sex, or whose family members or children might ever have heterosexual sex, or any woman who might ever be raped. All of those people might find themselves suddenly caring very strongly about their right to choose.
None of those things are immediate. They're pretty close to inevitable, but they're not immediate. People who are sitting there, pregnant or having just gotten somebody pregnant, and have to make a decision, or who have gone through this in the past, see this as an immediate issue. That's pretty much all.
First, I'd like to thank you for your change in tone and vocabulary from arnoldsm's last post to this one.
Firstly, I think it's shameful that the Deed's campaign is trying to distance himself from the clinic. I understand campaign strategy, having been involved in campaign planning myself, however, a basic rule is that you can't always plan or control everything.
Deed's does not have to make abortion one of his central issues on the campaign trail, but, as he is pro-choice, attempting to silence a clinic that is supporting him will alienate the pro-choice constituency. People who make their anti-choice views a pillar of their political values aren't likely to vote for him anyway, but others won't simply take his views on one issue into account, considering the economy and health care are at the forefront of everyone's mind.
Alienating people who support you is political suicide. From arnoldsm's posts, it sounds like the people who run the clinic are politically active, and would likely have signs in their homes, volunteer for the campaign, and other things that a political candidate needs to run a successful campaign.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with your supposition about the difference in opinion between male and female feminists. Telling a woman to be a good little feminist and shut up, because the male knows best, is insulting at best, and a slap in the face at worst. It's a misogynist thing to do, and it is undermining more than just Deed's campaign. Feminism cannot succeed if everyone shuts up and allows the elite (mostly white, mostly men, mostly rich) to fight the fight for us.
Do you have any reason to believe that arnoldsm and coworkers are the victim of "Telling a woman to be a good little feminist and shut up, because the male knows best"? I'm not a woman, but my desire for a single payer national healthcare system never got a hearing. No Democrat will come anywhere close to my views on gun control, prison reform, the environment or ending the war on drugs - despite my being a male. Politicians can't be all things to all people, much as they'd like to. Almost everyone has to give up some things they care about. Being asked to keep your profile low during a campaign in hostile territory (Virginia!) isn't the worst that could happen.
Are you with us in reality, or just ideologically? Do you support our right to choose? To be heard?
Yes! Tom White thinks that some rights are 'too controversial' to be exercised. Tom White obviously does not believe in the Constitution.
The problem is not the emotional level of the issue, it's the pure bullshit being spewed by conservatives with any sort of a public voice. Read that blog post- advertising for abortions? Seriously? And yet it works, because how does a sane person fight this? So the campaign's decision, distasteful as it is, has logic, as Marc says.
Personally, I support your right to be heard, and to put up your own signs, but at the same time I necessarily must support the campaign's right to not help you be heard if they feel it's detrimental to their goals.
What about, as a compromise, asking the campaign for a bunch of signs to hand out to workers and clients, for them to post on their own lawns or elsewhere? I know the point of your post is that you should be able to put the signs up on the lawn of the clinic without the people you're supporting essentially telling you to stop. But if, ultimately, your goal is to do what's needed to get him elected, acting as a central point for passing out signs is something that could do a lot of good and also not draw overt attention. They might go for that, if they're not already too spooked to deal with you at all (which would really be sad- in the pathetic sense).
The problem is not the emotional level of the issue, it's the pure bullshit being spewed by conservatives with any sort of a public voice. Read that blog post - advertising for abortions? Seriously? And yet it works, because how does a sane person fight this?
You're right. How DOES a sane person fight this? If the pro-choice movement could answer that question, how to counter anti-choice propaganda (and I think it CAN be answered), we'd be well on our way to eliminating one of the biggest problems facing the movement.
This situation is also, as other commenters remarked, a reflection of Americans' near-total lack of critical-thinking skills. It's pretty scary to think what a goddamn mentally lazy Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly Nation we are.
Well. Also. The two-party system can fucking go straight to hell.
Bwahahaha. Truth.
Got a plan to send it there? Everyone hates the Two Party System but it'll dance on all our graves.
There's a difference between having to address the issue and wanting it to be a chief battleground of the campaign. In Virginia.
Actually, I am sort of sensing a divide in opinions between women and men feminists in this issue, in both this post and your previous.
Could it be that we men are looking at this issues through a privileged lens of not having been marginalized before?
I'd be interesting in hearing the gender perspectives of how women and men view this issue very differently, despite sharing the same end goals.
Then again, maybe gender is merely a coincidence in this all. Thoughts?
I"m female, and I feel very strongly about reproductive rights. Its just horrifying to me, the idea that some guy who's never met me would try to force me to be pregnant and give birth against my will. Its a very serious and personal issue that might affect my life strongly at any time, even though it hasn't already. Its one of the most important issues to me-- there would have be something equally critical to outweigh it in my mind. Maybe there is such a thing in the Virginia race, I don't know. But don't underestimate how many women would vote for someone they know nothing about just to protect their rights to their own bodies.
I do not think it is a coincidence.
Attacks on reproductive rights are attacks on a woman's personal autonomy, and ability to make decisions as an adult human being. The thought that someone would forsake basic human rights in order to pacify ridiculous individuals such as Tom White is horrifying.
Frankly, I think men have a different perspective on this issue because as you said, they are not continuously being marginalized for being human, or having to fight for such a basic right as bodily autonomy.
To add insult to injury, the people who want us to put our trust in them as our public representatives are all to quick to roll over for members of the far right. If I can't trust Deeds to acknowledge Tom White for the wing nut that he is, how can I trust him to stand up to legislative opposition?
"If I can't trust Deeds to acknowledge Tom White for the wing nut that he is, how can I trust him to stand up to legislative opposition?"
I know this is rhetorical, but there's an answer: You have to decide whether you think Deeds is ducking this fight because abortion rights are not as important to him as you'd like, or because this is purely (or at least mostly) a political decision based on being in a close race, and that he will be as strongly pro-choice as the OP suggests once he's in the chamber.
I don't live there; I don't know. I have no feel for the guy. Unfortunately, either way, he's the best option pro-choice people have, so in some ways you just have to hope he'll make a strong stand if elected. But I submit again the idea that a pro-choice politician's desire to downplay the issue- and Deeds is hardly the first one to do so- is based on the literally thought-free rabidness of the opposition.
This fact is critical. In many places it's a huge risk, if not a given, that the higher the profile of abortion in a campaign, the more the issue will get opponents to turn out than supporters. Until that basic fact changes, through whatever means, this is going to continue to be a hard thing for pro-choice politicians to deal with.
It's on us, as a whole, to give them the power to support controversial subjects like abortion and abortion clinics more openly. Until they feel like that support will win them more votes than it does for the opposition, this is going to be a problem.
It doesn't even really matter how strongly Deeds feels about keeping abortion legal. The time to settle that was the primary. Now, if you want to prevent anti-abortion legislation from being supported from the Governor's Mansion, he's the best choice even if he's the most lukewarm ally there is.
"To add insult to injury, the people who want us to put our trust in them as our public representatives are all to quick to roll over for members of the far right. If I can't trust Deeds to acknowledge Tom White for the wing nut that he is, how can I trust him to stand up to legislative opposition?"
What options do you think you've got?
I don't understand your question. Options with regards to what?
With regards to trusting Deeds on legislation. In a two man race, your options are to back pro-choice-but-not-like-you Deeds, back pro-life McDonnell, or sit it out (which essentially means backing McDonnell). Single issue pro-choicers are going to vote for Deeds no matter what, but won't win him the election alone. He needs to appear moderate to people in the middle who don't vote exclusively on abortion but might be leery of abortion clinics announcing "This is our guy!" or a successful effort by Deeds' opponents to portray that as the case.
Aleks is using the old abortion-as-stick routine. Women have to keep voting for the more left of the two candidates in the American system in order to keep their bodily autonomy intact. Said candidates are aware of this, which is why they are not compelled to do anything else regarding women's rights. No matter what, they can always say, "Would you rather have a Republican?" and we are expected to submit.
If you think I'm pulling a "routine", you can vote for Republicans or not vote. Democrats endlessly disappoint me, but I vote for them because the alternative is much worse. I routinely understand that the winning coalition is going to be one that is acceptable to a hell of a lot of people who don't see things the way I do. I'd like to be a dictator as much as you would, but until that happens I'm going to try for the best deal I can get out of democracy.
I also can't help but notice that you haven't proposed alternative options. Does that mean you actually do agree with me?
I'm the OP. I am exercising an alternative option by starting this discussion. Creigh Deeds want's me to hire him for governor? Well than I'm going to hold him accountable to the platforms he claims to run on. Pro-choice isn't just an item you check off on a list and never think about again. It means you support the choice of a woman to have a baby, or have an abortion. If you are going to be pro-choice than you have to support BOTH choices.
Obviously, I'm not going to just sit around and take whatever I can get. I'm going to use my voice so the people that represent me know they have to do better.
Are you going to vote for Deeds? (Rhetorical question, none of my business.) Of course you should make your views known, but in the end you get to vote for the pro-choice candidate you dislike, the pro-life candidate whose policies you'll dislike, or not vote for either. Blogging is great but it's not really an alternative to voting.
The "alternative option" to Deeds:
'89 Thesis A Different Side of McDonnell
Va. GOP Candidate Wrote on Women, Marriage and Gays
By Amy Gardner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 30, 2009
At age 34, two years before his first election and two decades before he would run for governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell submitted a master's thesis to the evangelical school he was attending in Virginia Beach in which he described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/29/AR2009082902434_pf.html
I completely disagree that this is just men telling women to shut up. This is about politics, and politics aren't pretty.
I have spent my career working on political campaigns, and the ugly truth is you have to do what is political effective to get the person who has the best policy. In today's world, that sadly means downplaying the issue of abortion. It is frustrating and feels marginalizing, but if he becomes the "abortion candidate" he will lose. Then you get a guy in office who will actually shut those clinics down.
Deeds isn't saying that he doesn't support abortion, he is saying he does, and he wants to do what will work politically to get into office so he can use the power to support abortion.
Politics are not noble, they are expedient. Deeds isn't marginalizing his abortion clinic supporters, he is acknowledging that society already has marginalized them. If he gets into office, the hope would be that he could work to change that a bit. If he doesn't win, though, he can't do anything.
BTW, I wasn't saying that you, Marc, were saying it was about men telling women. Someone else said that but I was responding to your question of the male/female divide and through that in, too.
BTW, I wasn't saying that you, Marc, were saying it was about men telling women anything. Someone else said that, and I threw that into my reply about whether it was a male/female thing.
I'm busy so I don't have much time to respond, but I wanted to say thank you. Thank you for being an abortion provider.
I saw your last entry, and wanted to jump in and defend you, but Movable type was not cooperating. I just wanted to say that I am very glad you all didn't give up.
I hate to see campaign strategy invoked to silence people. No politician wins with political strategy. They win with support, which is largely grassroots in nature.
Keep it up!
You have my support, and I know that you have the support of many people both here on this site and out in the world. You and your organization provide a last resort for women and should be acknowledged and praised for that fact, not marginalized. I can understand a candidate not wanting to create a flashpoint in his campaign; that's just politics. But his staffers should have politely explained that to you, and I am shocked and disappointed at some of the comments your previous community post received. You have every right to endorse whatever candidate you wish, and so-called progressives need to wake up and realize that abortion providers should be thanked, not marginalized.
I don't know anything about the Virginia gubernatorial race, as I'm not a Virginian. So I can't comment on that, as much as I'd like to hazard guesses and posture theory.
Personally, women's rights are a wedge issue for me. If a candidate does not support equal pay, equal treatment and bodily autonomy for women, I will not vote for them. I feel it's a respect issue for women that these candidates have to acknowledge.
I'm also one of those crazy voters who does research on each candidate beyond watching CNN, but regardless, the candidates need to prove themselves to me beyond sound bites and good speeches.
I am in Virginia, and I do vote in this "purple" state. I would love to hear that there is a pro-choice candidate, and it's sad that I had to hear about it via a post about the candidate telling abortion providers to not support him publicly.
I'm MORE likely to vote for him now that I know he's pro-choice. And I will let his campaign know that he needs the pro-choicers on his side, so they need to be supporting us, not telling us to shut up. Otherwise, we might not be showing up at the polls at all.
I emailed his campaign telling him that I wish he would let more of us forgotten pro-choice voters know that he is pro-choice.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You rock!
I appreciate you posting on this and feel just as outraged as you and probably everyone at the clinic. Keep your sign up and be proud.
This is just another example of how anti-choicers have come to feel entitled to harass abortion clinics. Abortion is NOT "controversial." It is only "controversial" insofar as a goddamn LEGAL AND SAFE MEDICAL PROCEDURE is controversial. I wish we could get some more stringent anti-harassment laws, but it seems the government isn't interested in preventing harassment - or, apparently, violence.
I think it would also help if pro-choicers would stop using such dangerous concessions in their public rhetoric, like the silly aphorism "safe, legal, and rare." When we do this, we're really bending to an anti-choice propaganda war (that they seem to be winning) that uses misleading, dishonest metaphors to dehumanize abortion doctors and women who have abortions, such as painting abortion as "murder." It's become so common, and so engrained in people's minds, even pro-choice minds, to associate abortion with murder that now pro-choicers can't figure out how to get themselves out of it. The pro-choice movement hasn't figured out an effective way to counter this type of rhetoric and so you, abortion providers, and women, are left in this limbo where you feel like you can't count on people's support in times of need, or like even some pro-choicers treat you like your job is a vaguely immoral dirty secret, a necessary evil, etc. The "necessary evil" rhetoric might be a good way to initially ward off the ire of rabid anti-choicers, but really all it does is make us look like we're hanging our heads and admitting to wrongdoing, we know we're "killing babies," we're sorry, we don't like it, either. This is bullshit and simply isn't going to keep anti-choicers pacified for long.
In any case, again, I stand behind you completely. Pro-choice supporters need to be more vocal, stop being fair-weather friends, and stop abandoning you when they're under a bit of pressure or harassment by conservative wingnuts. You shouldn't be expected to operate under the radar; nothing you do is shameful or illegal. No doubt some of the same clinics that provide abortions also provide mass amounts of contraception and prevention and comfort, much more than any whiney sex-phobic conservatives would ever do.
You are a peddler of life. :o) Life for women. Life for the women who would otherwise hemorrhage to death alone in their bathrooms, ashamed, crying. Your work is important and wonderful; please always remember it.
I wish I could hit "like" on this comment a million times. You rock. XD
"Controversial" doesn't mean what you think it means. When a large minority of people want something banned completely, and a plurality or outright majority wants it restricted, then it is "controversial," even if you personally have no doubts about it.