The Abortion Question and what the VP Answers Reveal

I know I'm so late getting to this, but I really want to talk about the Vice-Presidential debate, and specifically, the abortion question that Martha Raddatz asked at the end. 

First of all, it did kind of bother me that she formed the question in terms of religion. She asked,

We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country. Please talk personally about this, if you could.

We live in a country that, officially, separates church and state. We live in a country that is supposed to advocate for religious freedom. We live in a country that is supposed to keep God (any and all of them) out of our legal practices. But of course, we don't actually live in that country. We live in a country in which a large number (the majority?) of our political leaders constantly make laws based on their religious (Christian) beliefs, regardless of how those laws may affect others with different beliefs. So while I hate, hate, the way she asked this question, I understand why she did it.

Now, their answers. Paul Ryan answered first. He talked about his Catholic religion informing his belief that life begins at conception, and he said, "I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do." This answer makes me so angry, mainly because there are so many people who think he's absolutely right. It's a total disregard for the separation of church and state. And I think this answer proves that in all things, not just abortion, Ryan has no problem pushing a purely Christian (and of course, that means whatever he deems to be Christian) agenda in his work as a politician. He also managed to bring up how women wanting contraceptive coverage, and Obama in supporting them, are infringing upon his, and others', religious liberty:

Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.

You know, because employers should have the right to tell their employees which medications to take, and for what reasons. Because that makes sense. (To Paul Ryan: the insurance company's pay for that, not the Catholic institutions. The institutions, and you, need to get out of women's personal lives.)

Joe Biden, on the other hand, also mentioned his Catholic faith and how it affects his personal life (presumably, I'd say, he would not want anyone in his family having an abortion), but went on to say,

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the—the congressman. I—I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that—women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. 

I have been trying to go back and find a full transcript of both answers, which I haven't found yet, but I'm pretty sure that Biden is the only one who even used the word "women". He acknowledges that women have a right to make their own decisions, and that he has no right to be involved. By mentioning women, he acknowledges that the abortion question is one that he, as a man, should not really have a say in. (As my mom always says, "As far as I'm concerned, if they aren't gonna ever be pregnant, they just need to keep their mouths shut.")

He also acknowledges keeping his religion out of his politics. Though I was disappointed with the religious framing of the question, I was yelling "Yes!" at my computer screen when he mentioned refusing to make laws based on religion. 

I also loved when Martha Raddatz directly asked Paul Ryan if those who do believe in legal abortion should be worried with a Romney administration. He looked shocked, and then said, "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination." You know, like how all those people have voted and agreed to grant full human rights to fertilized eggs. Oh wait, those measures have ALL been voted down?

The truth is, we absolutely should be worried about reproductive rights with a Romney/Ryan victory. And we should also worry about an aggressively Christian agenda. We already know that Romney doesn't care much about 47% percent of the population. I'm guessing non-Christians make up a pretty large percentage of that group. 

For more reading on the VP Debate and abortion question, check out:

This one, with its mention of what Ryan's "bean" comments implicate, is my favorite. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/of-babies-and-beans-paul-ryan-on-abortion.html  

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/144931/paul_ryans_stance_on_abortion

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/11/veep_debate_martha_raddatz_asks_paul_ryan_and_joe_biden_about_abortion_ryan.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/10/abortion-in-the-vice-presidential-debate.html

America Victim Blames So Easy

"Some girls rape easy."Wisconsin  Rep. Roger Rivard said this. When trying to clarify his statement, he said,

"[My father] also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,' " Rivard said. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh yeah I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'"

I'm so sick of this conversation about women changing their minds about sex the next day, or down the road. Sex is consensual in the moment, then the woman changes her mind and calls it rape the next day, because she feels guilty, because she feels ashamed. I'm sure this has happened, but let's stop talking about it like this makes up the majority of rape accusations. There are several problems with this narrative.

1. This implies that women should, and do, feel guilty about sex. Of course women feel guilty about sex, especially young women, when their culture is constantly telling them to be sexy but don't have sex, to be desirable but not to feel desire. Women are more connected with the image they are putting out, with how they look, than how they feel. Peggy Orenstein, in her book Schoolgirls, spoke to one young girl who told her about a "hooking up" situation with a boy. When asked how it felt, the girl responded, "I felt like I looked good."

2. This narrative leaves every victim wide open to accusations of lying about a rape. This allows policemen, parents, bystanders to ask "Are you sure you didn't want it?" It allows people to call into question what the woman was wearing, if she was drunk, how she was behaving, if she agreed to some sexual encounter and then changed her mind. It calls into question every woman who is brave enough to report a rape.

3. This narrative also leaves out men in several ways. First, it doesn't allow for the possibility that a woman did feel ashamed, because she was coerced by another person. But this narrative paints the guy (or the woman if it's a man, but I'll get to that in a minute) as a victim. HE just had sex and then suddenly she's going back on everything that happened, she is lying, she is embarrassed and trying to cover her own ass. He is just an innocent bystander. Also, this narrative doesn't allow for a male victim, either as a victim of rape, or as someone who feels confused or ashamed about sex after the fact. Men have feelings too, people. I know men who have had sexual encounters that they regretted, or were confused about. I know a man who lost his virginity to a confident, aggressive older girl, a girl who didn't know he was a virgin and didn't ask if he wanted to have sex. And afterward, he was suddenly sad that he had lost his virginity in this quick way. Some people, especially if the genders in this scenario were reversed, would absolutely call this rape. He doesn't call it rape (and he doesn't have to). But my point is that he has never really been able to work through any regretful or confused feelings about his first sexual encounter because in our culture, he should be nothing but excited about having sex. And a girl initiated it? Awesome! He's a stud. End of story. It's just not fair.

4. In the same way that this narrative doesn't allow men to feel bad about sex, it doesn't allow women to feel good about it. It says that women should feel bad about sex. It says that if their parents find out they had sex, of course they are going to lie about it, because they should be ashamed and secretive about it. It doesn't allow for women to enjoy sex or for young women to admit that they are responsible and safe about sex.

We need to talk about sex, openly and honestly. We need to acknowledge that women feel desire the same as men, and that men feel confusion about sex the same as women. We need conversations that acknowledge sex as something good and pleasurable (and to be done safely and responsibly), instead of as something bad and shameful.