You just gotta love Camille Paglia. Well, maybe not all the time, but her writing is succinct and well reasoned; even if you don’t agree with the central thesis of whatever piece you happen to be reading. I’m quite sure that as often as I’ve shaken my head in amazement at her stances, some of her liberal friends find themselves in the same boat. Her article from last Thursday is a great example of what I mean. I’m quite sure she’s pissed off more than a few of her fellow abortion rights comrades by highlighting their religious fervor towards the issue of abortion, much the same way the pro-choice movement derides those of a more traditional religious viewpoint. I’ll give her this much; she’s consistent and declares herself to be more courageous than her fellow abortion rights supporters who hide behind what she calls the “cowardly euphemism” term of “pro-choice.” Courageous indeed.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt...

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt…

Paglia was writing about the unfortunate slip of the tongue of Hillary the Great, the anointed democrat nominee. (Can nominee and anointed be used in the same sentence?) Was Hillary trying to soften her abortion stance, hoping to move as far to the right as Bernie will allow her, or was this actually a deep rooted conviction from a woman who has really only shown a deep rooted conviction for anything that might benefit Hillary? Was Hillary simply confused when she referred to the fetus as an “unborn person,” quite possibly recalling her junior high school biology lessons where I and millions of other eager yet empty headed youngsters first learned that when a woman gets pregnant, she’s carrying a human child and not a puppy, a goldfish or a snail? How dare she humanize a fetus? Did she possibly search Webster’s online: “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically :  a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Say what you will, but I won’t be shaken from the certainty that you’re killing something that was always human. It’s biology you see.

It’s quite amazing, really, and somewhat depressing that young women are being taught that they’re not carrying anything that even remotely looks like their own baby pictures. If you don’t humanize it, it’s easier to kill it. And heaven forbid someone offers you a chance to look at the face of your “choice” via any type of ultra-sound so you can see just what you’re about to tear to pieces. What kind of idiot provides a woman with that kind of clarity? But hey, Hillary redeemed herself by assuring those so offended by the term “unborn person” (you know, a human child) that the unborn don’t have any constitutional rights anyway. So there.

Camille, Like Hillary, is quite sure that the execution of the unwanted gestating child is supported without restriction under the fourteenth amendment. And Camille does pat her self on the back quite often, proud that she has always been consistent with respect to the sanctity of life, and feels that her support of abortion on demand equals her support for the death penalty of those convicted of heinous crimes. She tells us that she feels that pro-choice Democrats have become “callous and extreme” about abortion. How you can, in the same breath, find that abortion is protected by the fourteenth amendment which gives equal protection to all persons under the law and then equate an innocent unborn person with a convicted murderer is beyond me. And to call others callous in the process. But such is the life of an ardent, courageous “pro-abortion supporter” I guess.

Troubling even more is that she glances over her support for Margaret Sanger, noting only in passing Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s origins promoting eugenics; she never mentions the fact that much of the purification of the gene pool was aimed at blacks. No, Camille became disillusioned over Planned Parenthood when she realized it became a “covert arm of the democrat party.” And leaves it at that. Not because Planned Parenthood and the democrat party are systematically killing unborn not-quite-human-victims, many of them black mind you, but because they are a “covert arm of the democrat party.” Which of course, is news to no one at all.

At least Camille points out that nature oppresses women in far greater ways than men do. But the left doesn’t quite go for biology; see the entry above from Webster’s. In fact, if they can’t find someone to blame, they can’t create more victims. Like Camille, I too consider myself quite libertarian, leaning more conservative. And yes, my own views on abortion frustrate the bejeebus out of everyone. Want to have an abortion? Go ahead. On your own dime. With your own child, not mine. Explain it to your God, or Gaia, or whatever you call your conscience, but leave me out hell out of it. I have no right to tell any woman who is not carrying my child what she has to do with her body. Sorry friends, I have always felt that way. I have no more right to control you than you have to control me. But that’s not good enough for second or third wave feminism. What was once a movement about reproductive rights became sex without consequence; the choice at the front end of the act de-coupled from the consequence of that “choice.” And somehow, you decided the government needs to get me involved. Either I pay for your abortion or pay for your offspring. I got just as sick of the feminist movement over abortion as Camille seems to be. And of course, I’m told I hate women because of it. Camille, you dammed misogynist. It appears that feminism was just a change in how women could fund their victimization due to the burden of pregnancy. Being supported by a man is heinous; having his financial support coerced from him and filtered through the government; a-okay.

It’s interesting to note that she brings up what she feels were the “flimsy and overblown” charges leveled against Clarence Thomas. Interesting in the fact that during the same period, many young men like myself were ardent supporters of equal opportunities for women; even though we were constantly subjected to harangues of how evil men were as we stood should to shoulder with those slinging these arrows. I was concerned for my sisters (biological!) and the future Ms. Messydesk and possible daughters. But I was raised to be considerate of women; yes we were taught to pull out the chairs at the table, open doors, give up our seats on the bus. And more often, I was looked upon with derision for those actions, even to the point of being publically berated on more than one occasion. Maybe it isn’t biology that second and third wavers were struggling with, maybe it was friggin’ manners. Who knows? But it became tedious. I would always be the enemy and they were dammed sure to let me know, no matter how many signs I held up side-by-side with them. Or maybe it was because I expected them to become truly self-sufficient. And called them on it.

To be consistent, Camille should also discuss, not only how feminism misses the point on the biology of women, but also how feminism has declared war on the biology of men. Fatherhood is a joke; a quaint but antiquated social construct. No need for a man to make a child anymore. A strong father figure in the home is a vanishing breed. Any of the adjectives once used to describe the rugged male individual that women used to long for and men wanted to be like were discarded long before the Marlboro man choked out his last cigarette. No, we were now being forced to take sensitivity classes, wear pregnancy suits for a whole day, quizzed by our prospective paramours on whether we are afraid to cry, told to be less introspective and more talkative and for god sakes, take off those sweats and put on some dammed skinny jeans. Emasculation of the American male is really the goal here. This is no longer about equal opportunity, to raise women to their potential. No, the gap between the sexes, regardless of the dictates of biology like muscle mass and bone structures, uteri or prostate glands, could only be diminished by disparaging those traits that made males uniquely, biologically male. From Marlboro man to pajama boy in less than a generation.

But it’s even worse for those runny-nosed little heathens, boys, dealing with that toxic soup of the evil testosterone while they try to sit still in class, dreaming of pulling on that mesmerizing, swaying pony tail at the desk ahead of them. Society now treats them as predators in waiting, busted for a simple hug or stolen kiss on the playground, labeling them as serial sex abusers long before they develop the slightest wisp of pubic hair. Great cottage industries have grow up around diagnosing little boys as damaged little girls who might just be saved if we drug the natural, biological tendencies out of them and exchange their Tonka trucks for Barbie’s dream corvette or pry GI Joe from their hands, replaced by any one of the My Little Ponies. We wonder why children are facing dilemmas about their sexuality in far greater numbers; because we can’t face biology and project our inability to come to grips with it upon those who are currently at that stage in their lives when it has the most emotional and physical impact. Why do we teach little girls to fear and hate little boys and little boys to hate themselves. Go ahead; deny it if it helps you sleep better at night. Maybe you’re courageous too, like Camille.

We’ll never settle the debate over abortion. Unfortunately, we’ll never even agree to disagree. Some of us believe life starts at conception. Others believe life begins when society decides it does. Like maybe when you make it home from the hospital. In any event, feminism has moved to a place where I can no longer recognize why I, as a male, believed in it so strongly when I was younger. I still believe my daughters should have every opportunity to try anything they are capable of. And I also believe that their success should not be predicated on the demonization of the other half of the species. Feminist can deny their biology all they’d like; to each his or her own. But the issue still remains that what I see as the brand of feminism displayed today is nothing more than vitriol, self-loathing and an intense feeling of, maybe a celebration of victimhood. And if abortion is their Holy Grail, we should also note that biology includes death; the death of over 50 million babies aborted since Roe V. Wade. Mom went to Planned Parenthood and only brought back a tee shirt.

So like Camille, I’ve become quite disillusioned with feminism. I will however leave you with one last comment. If you can celebrate the death of your unborn child, then struggling with biology is likely not the only thing we can’t agree to disagree on.

Advertisements