Accidental Liberal Shamings: Abortion, Bodies, and Sexuality

If there is one phrase that I think I could use to sum up American liberals (and some left wing radicals) it would be "well-inentioned." It is my experience that these individuals, unlike the right in America, really do want to do what's best; they intend to be kind, respectful, and supportive; they wish to be allies to oppressed peoples and those in parallel struggles.  However, good intentions do not always translate into good behaviors.  Here I want to address three "well intentioned" comments I sometimes hear that are ultimately problematic.  I doubt that these are the only three and I invite you to comment with any others.

(1) Abortion.  It is not uncommon to hear liberals say something like, "Abortion is a very difficult choice" or "No one would ever choose to have an abortion; it's a necessity for some people."  While it is certainly true that, for some women, abortion is a difficult choice, and that for others it proves to be some sort of necessity (whether that be medical, financial, psychological, etc.), there are also countless other women for whom it is not a necessity and for whom it is an easy choice.  If we really want to respect a woman's right to bodily autonomy, we should accept that these women too have the right to make that choice, and to do so with ease if that is how they feel.  For some women, they are simply making the choice to have a low-risk medical procedure that they believe is in their best interests.  And that OK.  It is OK to have an abortion for any reason you want.  To respond to anti-choicers with claims like those above instead of with a strong defense of choice itself as a basic right is to concede ground in the fight for choice.  Claims such as "No one would ever wantto have an abortion" ultimately say, "Yes, abortion is probably wrong; or it is least psychologically, if not physically, traumatic, but I still think it should be legal."  This is not only unnecessary, it is also largely inaccurate.  So stop saying that shit.  Instead, truly defend choice as a basic human right independent of the reason the woman is making that choice.  Similarly, stop saying things like, "Well, I could never have an abortion, but I respect women's rights to do so" unless someone has specifically asked if you would choose to have one.  To become defensive when no one has asked whether you would choose to have an abortion indicates that you perceive yourself to somehow be better than others, that there is something wrong with abortion.  It's OK to never think you would want one (though you should not guess what you would do unless you're in the situation), but what you think you would do is not really relevant to discussing the right itself.

Seriously, stop it...

(2) Body Shaming.  It goes without saying that some people suffer from eating disorders and that these can manifest in both stuffing or starving oneself.  Both potentially represent an unhealthy relationship to food.  It is also the case that such disorders are sometimes rooted in trauma.  As a consequence, some liberals and leftists will, when confronted with someone who is body shaming, say something to the effect of, "You know, a lot of people with that body type are struggling with some sort of trauma.  So really, in shaming her, you're shaming a survivor."  In some cases, this may be true.  But in responding this way, you transition from "shaming" to "pathologizing."  In both cases, the speaker is saying, "That is not an acceptable body type."  In the first, this is simply being said.  In the second, it is being said more subtly because the person says, "That body type represents trauma."  But the background of that is to say, "No one would have that body type if they were psychologically healthy," which can be reduced to, "No one would want that body type," which means, "That's a bad/unattractive/unhealthy body type," which is ultimately the same thing that the person who was originally shaming the person said.  So don't do it.  You do not need to pathologize someone's body to defend them against shaming or objectification.  A person has every right to have whatever beautiful, awesome body they wish to have, and they probably have plenty of people in their life who think they're body is the fucking awesome body that it is.  Some of those people may, in fact, be suffering from trauma too, but so are lots of other people for whom their trauma does not manifest in the same embodiment.  So defend a person's right to bodily autonomy and to have whatever body they please
independent of any reason (or lack thereof) for the body type.

(3) Sexuality.  There has often been a contested debate about whether or not homosexuality is a choice.  Liberals and leftists have frequently adopted the idea that individuals are "born that way" or "do not have a choice" to bolster their support for equality, and it is certainly not only straight people that make this case.  This is understandable in part because it has proven to be an effective strategy.  But like with the abortion claim above, it is also problematic.  An individual should have the right to bodily autonomy, and part of respecting that right is that individuals are free to consent or not to any sexual activity.  Why they wish to consent to that activity is irrelevant.  Some people may feel that they were born with a certain sexuality; others may feel it was a choice; others may feel a little of each.  It does not matter because what they do with their bodies is up to them!  To say, one is "born that way" as a response to a homophobe is to ultimately say, "If someone was not born that way, if it was a choice, then you are right, it would be immoral.  My only argument is that they have no choice."  This not only admits to homosexuality's potential supposed immorality, but it also subtracts free will, autonomy, and choice (basic priniciples of human dignity and respect) from other-than-straight people.  So, like with all the claims above, just don't do it.  Respect a person's right to bodily autonomy no matter what.  If we have the right to bodily autonomy, then the reasons for our consensual sexual, bodily, and medical practices do not matter.  It is only if those rights are already suspect that such explanations may begin to make sense.  But if those rights are suspect, then we are already ceding ground to those who would oppress and subjugate people.  These are already often literally fights for people's lives, so we don't need to do any of the fighting for the other side.

I get it.  People say these things with the best of intentions.  They hope that such claims will be persuasive, and thus make the world a better place; sometimes it even works.  But if we really want the world to be better for everyone then we need that world to be based in human rights and human dignity.  We must argue for these rights and for the idea that these rights do not need "excuses" or "justifications" behind them.  Otherwise, we run the risk of eventually losing these rights.

Man, I feel like a woman...

MRAs (Men's Rights Assholes) often attempt to denounce any and all feminist claims.  They insist that men have it just as bad, if not worse, than women do.  Men, they would have us believe, are falling victim to a "politically correct" culture that ignores a man's right to insist a woman carry "his child" to term (meaning, control her body); a world that shuns men to the side while giving women better jobs (meaning, actually might treat women as close to equals in the workplace); a world that attacks his freedom of speech in exchange for her comfort (meaning, he cannot verbally assault her); and so on.  One of their common claims MRAs make is that, perhaps, men are as likely, if not more likely, to be victims of sexual assault.  This, of course, is a daunting claim.  It's well known that 20-25% of women will be the victims of sexual assault, and in some demographic categories, Native American women for example, that number may spike even higher.  Therefore, the claim that men are as likely, or even more likely, to be such victims is often shrugged off with easy disregard.

This claim, though, is more complex than that.  And, like when debunking any claim by reactionaries, we should take it seriously.  In this case, the claim is not so much "literally false" as "misleading."  More men than women are raped in the United States of America when one includes incidences of rape in America's prison system.  Arguably, America may have more people in prison than any society or government in the history of humanity (it has surpassed the Gulag's of Russia), and certainly has more than any other nation on earth currently.  Furthermore, a vast majority of these prisoners are men (over 93%).  And, finally, it is no great secret that sexual assault, including rape, is a major problem in these institutions.  The effect of this is that when we include prison rape in the statistics, more men are raped in America than women.

Do I wish to discount this?  Not exactly.  The rapes and other atrocities that take place in prisons (not to mention the atrocity that is the very existence of prisons) are, without a doubt, traumatic to the survivors.  I feel certain that a man raped in a prison feels comparable trauma, fear, insecurity, and so on to that which women feel when assaulted.  I am sure that men in prison, who fear being raped, knowing it's so common, walk out of their cells in fear; that they may eye up fellow prisoners wondering if this is someone who may attack them in such a way.  In fact, this is one of men in America's most significant fears about going to prison.  We often see this represented (sometimes comedically) in television shows and movies with references to "dropping the soap."

And this is the point I really want to make here.  This statistic may be accurate, but here's what it really means: in order for men to feel what women feel every day for the simple act of leaving their homes and going to work, school, or just for a walk or a bike ride, men have to be accused, tried, and convicted of a crime.  Only then, and only in that setting, do men have the possibility of possibly experiencing what women experience everyday simply by existing in patriarchal society.  So no, I do not want to minimize the significance of America's prison rape epidemic.  It's horrific, it's shameful for the nation, and it must be stopped; no one deserves to be raped, no matter what crime they have committed.  But we mustn't claim that this makes the experience of sexual assault for men on the whole comparable to that of women, and the statistic should not be presented without qualification.  For the average cis-man, walking out his front door in the morning is a safe act.  He is unlikely to be sexually assaulted in any way, unlikely to be sexually harassed, and so on.  Only under the very unique condition of being placed in prison in the good ol' USofA does he have a chance of feeling what women feel, fearing what women fear, and experiencing what women experience.  And this does make it different, because eventually that man may leave prison, but women cannot escape patriarchy in this society.  Most imprisoned men can feel confident that they may someday escape the institution in which they are likely to fear rape (which is not to say that the trauma will not persist beyond the walls of the prison); but patriarchy and misogyny are institutions that exist as part of the very basis of this society, and are inescapable without changing society itself.  One cannot simply walk out their doors one day, traumatized but free.

So are more men raped than women?  Perhaps, technically, yes.  But while these incidences may be comparable for the individual (she and he may feel similar trauma afterwards), they are not comparable societally because of their very different context.  Men do not exist everyday for their entire lives in rape culture, their bodies treated as the objects of male gaze and fascination; as the property of men.  It may be the case that in American prisons men experience some of this, something that no one should have to experience ever, but the fact that men have to be placed in a prison to even have that possibility is incredibly telling.  So the next time an MRA brings something like this up, don't just shrug it off, prove it wrong and/or emphasize the context.