| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Next |
| Table of Contents |
Picking up
where I left off, Jennifer said: "Women, like men, consume scarce resources. Some
women, like some men, consume more of these scarce resources than do other women and men.
"Some
women, like some men, have more power than do other men and women, not only with respect
to their own lives but also in relation to the lives of others. This is especially true
when the empowered, including women, continually force the unempowered, also including
women, into zero-sum games in which the unempowered have virtually no chance of winning.
"Some
women, like some men, have access to better quality legal services, health care, and
educational opportunities than do other women and men. Some women, like some men, have
access to better quality housing, food and leisure activity than do other men and women.
"Some
women, like some men, benefit from the oppression of others, both women and men. Some
women, like some men, engage in the political, financial and economic exploitation of
others, both women and men.
"Feminism
has given voice to a universal message that is intended for all women. Yet, in practice,
many of the advances to which feminism has given birth only have eased the passage of some
privileged, middle-class women into positions of power, economic success and public
visibility. More often than not, these 'advances' have merely sharpened class lines by
forcing economically and politically underprivileged women and men further down the
socio-economic scale.
"In
effect, even though there are those individuals who have been able to take advantage of
the enhanced opportunities that feminism has helped to open up for some women, this
advantage has been gained to the detriment of other women. In this respect, women have
shown themselves to be just as opportunistic as their male counterparts whose gains often
come at the expense of other men and women.
"If one
would like to argue that statistically, and in general, women have been more disadvantaged
than men, both currently as well as historically, so be it. However, one cannot use this
claim to turn around and marginalize the suffering of the men and women who have been, and
are continuing to be, disadvantaged. This is especially so when this disadvantage comes,
in part, at the hands of advantaged women who have a vested interest, along with their
male counterparts, in keeping some people, both men and women, in a position of
disadvantage."
Going with
the flow of the conversation, I added: "There are many people in North America and
Europe whose quality of life is enhanced because they can derive economic advantage from
labor and resource situations which are rooted in oppressive, exploitive, and abusive
practices taking place in various countries elsewhere in the world. Both men and women
benefit from this situation, and both men and women suffer because of this situation.
"The
continuation of these kinds of economic advantages depends on ensuring that such
oppressive, abusive and exploitive practices continue. It is not for nothing that the
United States and a number of European countries have armed and trained the armies of
quite a few resource-rich, but democracy-poor, countries around the world.
"Many
people in North America enjoy advantages today that are based on our use of lands and
resources that have been acquired through the criminal and immoral manner in which our
predecessors have dealt with Native peoples. Many of us, both women and men, enjoy
advantages that have been bought and paid for by the oppression and exploitation of other
women and men."
Shifting the
focus of the discussion slightly, but continuing on with the general tenor of what had
been said up to this juncture, Jennifer noted: "Virtually every woman, like virtually
every man, engages in pollution of one sort or another and, as a result, helps degrade and
destroy the environment. Some women, like some men, contribute more pollution than do
other men and women.
"Some
women, like some men, have become dogmatically committed to their nation, religion, class,
race, ethnic group, and/or political philosophy. As a result, these women, along with
their men, are quite prepared to discriminate against, or treat unjustly, if not
inhumanely, anyone who falls outside the umbrella of protection of their particular brand
of fanaticism.
"Consequently,
some women, like some men, believe they have an obligation to teach their children to
carry on the parental tradition of prejudice, bigotry and dogmatism with respect to a
variety of other women and men. Not only do such women and men seek to oppress those who
are different from themselves, they also oppress their own children, both girls and boys,
through their acts of indoctrination.
"Some
women, like some men, engage life almost exclusively from purely worldly intentions,
purposes and motivations. Some women, like some men, encourage their children to become
preoccupied with the false self rather than the true self.
"Men
and women have both helped to make the world the way it is. If women would like to put
forth the rather contentious argument that men are responsible for, say, some arbitrarily
large part of the world's problems, both past and present, then we also should explain how
we are going to take care of our own arbitrarily small contribution to the mess which we
have helped to create and for which we are fully responsible."
There was a
further question that I wanted to ask Jennifer. The issue was as emotion laden, if not
more so, as any problem confronting women, in particular, and society in general.
I was
pushing my luck, perhaps, because, up until now, although our conversation had been
intense and even, at times, passionate, nevertheless our lines of communication had never
been threatened. In the case of the question which I had in mind, however, past experience
had taught me that one was venturing into an area where even angels fear to tread.
Some of my
concerns were allayed by my confidence in, and respect for, Jennifer's even-handed way of
dealing with tough issues that others, including many men I knew, would not have been able
to accomplish. Still, my question was voiced with a certain degree of uncertainty, if not
trepidation.
"Where
do you stand on the issue of abortion, Jennifer?" I inquired.
"As far
away as possible," she said, with either a smile or a grimace. I couldn't quite tell
in the available light.
There was a
brief silence following her reply, and, then, she continued on. "Abortion," she
began, "is an extremely complex issue simply because it cuts across so many
contentious themes ... themes which are contentious in and of themselves, independently of
abortion.
"Freedom,
equality, individual rights, collective rights, moral philosophy, economics, religious
values, mental health, the political process, medical ethics, personhood, duties of care,
poverty, constitutional interpretation, education, dysfunctional families, welfare, crime
... the problematic currents that run through abortion, and swirl about it, are very
extensive. We aren't even clear about how to think about, or deal with, all of these other
problems, so most of us come to the issue of abortion in a very confused state.
"The
true believers at either end of the spectrum of perspectives concerning abortion have a
dogmatism, fanaticism and air of moral certainty about them which, quite frequently,
renders any attempt at cooperative efforts, let alone dialogue, an exercise in futility.
On the other hand, out of frustration, confusion, and indifference, a lot of people in
between the two extremes merely abdicate their responsibilities as moral agents and turn
the channel.
"Some
of the extremist pro-lifers are quite prepared to take life in order to impose their
pro-life point of view on others. Similarly, some of the extremist pro-choice advocates
are quite prepared to impose their will on others in order to serve their vision of
justice. Neither group of people seems to be aware of, or understand, the nature of the
ironic, but fatal, inconsistencies in their respective positions.
"Even
amongst those who share, to some degree, a general perspective on this issue, one finds
tremendous differences and divisions. For example, there are any number of philosophical
and religious arguments that carry various implications for the problem of determining
exactly when a fetus achieves the status of personhood.
"This
line of demarcation concerning personhood is crucial because, at least for some
individuals, such a line identifies the limits of permissibility concerning what may or
may not be done with respect to either the embryo or the fetus. On one side of the line,
no person exists and, therefore, abortion may be, depending on circumstances, justifiable.
On the other side of this line, a person is said to exist and, therefore, abortion may not
be justifiable, although, even here, some people may permit exceptions to this general
principle.
"There
are those who wish to set the limit of permissibility at the moment of conception. Others
establish the line of demarcation at forty days. Still other individuals say that the
minimal conditions of personhood do not arise until around the third month, and there are
some people, including many doctors, who would be increasingly reluctant to perform an
abortion the closer one comes to the end of the second trimester.
"Some
individuals wish to avoid the whole personhood debate and merely use the law to
arbitrarily set the line of demarcation. However, some of these people go about this in a
very peculiar, if not inconsistent, fashion.
"For
instance, in both the United States and Canada, women were not accorded the legal status
of personhood until well into the present century. Many feminists have argued that this
legal denial of personhood to women is but one more example of the oppressive nature of
patriarchy and the gendering process. Yet, many of these same feminists wish to legally
deny the status of personhood to the fetus, which, in many ways and in many cases, is but
a younger version of themselves.
"No one
likes to be oppressed, even a little. Unfortunately, however, we don't always necessarily
mind oppressing others, even more than a little.
"When a
man considers a woman to be his personal chattel, to be treated and disposed of as he
likes, this is deemed, and quite rightly, to be wrong. When a woman considers a fetus to
be her personal chattel, to be treated and disposed of as she likes, this is deemed, at
least by some, to be right.
"The
criteria by which some are to be accorded the legal status of person, while others are to
be denied this same legal status, are extremely problematic. Furthermore, the standards by
which some are judged as chattel, while others are entitled to be free of such judgements,
needs considerable clarification.
"Feminists
say the law earlier in this century was wrong to deny women legal standing as persons.
They have used, among other things, extra-legal arguments involving patriarchy and
gendering, to expose the error in law.
"Nevertheless,
many of these same feminists who wish to deny the fetus legal standing as a person, now
claim that the law, as it stands, is correct and no extra-legal arguments are permitted.
Apparently, what is good for one goose is not good for another goose, not to mention a few
ganders."
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Next |
| Table of Contents |
|
