I was born in Spain in 1991. I grew up in Spain (and for short periods of time in the US) and as I got older I often got told that because I was a woman I was being discriminated against. I never felt this. At home my parents shared chores. My mum was more of a cleaner (she cannot stand dirtiness, while my dad and I can quite happily live with it), my dad was more of an organiser (he often says if he didn't put an effort into being organised he would probably go crazy). My mum does laundry (most of the time) and my dad irons (my mum hates ironing). Both of them cook (though my mother prefers to cook herself). Overall, I would probably say my mum does a bit more on the house chores side of things, but only because she wants to (if it were up to my dad and me it's likely that the kitchen would be cleaned once a week, and this wouldn't make my mother very happy). As far as I can remember they both took equal care of me when I was little, and (maybe because I don't have any brothers or sisters) I always helped out with whatever needed doing, be it setting up the table, building Ikea furniture or trying to do some electrical work in our new house in Salamanca (I have to admit I never paid enough attention to this last thing, I am scared of any electrical work, I don't want to be involved with anything to do with cables). The only time I ever heard a comment about me being a girl was when my dad said that girls can't play football. He never stopped me from playing, but I was bad enough to admit he might be right. The point I'm making here was that when I grew up I never once felt that I was being discriminated against because I was a girl. I never felt that I got a worse deal because I was a girl. The only time I ever felt I was treated differently was when I started going out and some clubs would let me in for free because I was a girl and they would make my male counterparts pay. Though I didn't think it was fair, I never thought to complain about it.
In the past few years, partly because I've been at Imperial, which is a predominantly male university, partly because I love reading so-called feminist blogs (I say so-called because they rarely deal with feminism, most of the time they discuss isolated incidents of sexism and refuse to admit that maybe what they are discussing is due to a deranged individual rather than to half of humanities attitude towards the other half), I have become more and more interested in sexism, feminism and gender equality. I have had discussions about it with many people, and my general conclusion has been that most people I know aren't sexist, if you give them a chance to think about it. I have met very few individuals who think men are superior to women, even less individuals who are willing to admit it. There are cases of "cultural" sexism, but whenever I've made someone aware of this (and I don't do it often because 99% of the time I don't feel like it affects my life at all, I mean, if you think you should pay for your girlfriend's dinner every time you go out that's between you two) they have nearly always been able to show me that the reason behind it is cultural and based on custom rather than on an ingrained belief that men are superior. And then, one day, I discovered that I myself am sexist. Or, in the very least, I am not a feminist.
According to the online dictionary I've been able to consult, in British English, the definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes". A feminist is "a woman who supports feminism". I don't believe men and women are equal. Therefore I am not a feminist.
This realisation came to me quite casually, during a discussion with a colleague. It was a discussion I had had once before, with my parents, though that first time I had taken the complete opposite point of view (anyone who knows me will know I love arguing, and I can take up almost any opinion just for the sake of having an argument). The discussion was about abortion. I am of the opinion that abortion should be legal. I am also of the opinion that people who think that supporting the legality of abortion means supporting abortion itself are in the best case naïve, in the worst case, trying to demonise the supporters of the legality of abortion. I don't think any woman wants to ever have to go through an abortion, in fact, I think that any woman, being given the choice between not falling pregnant and having an abortion would prefer not to fall pregnant. However, women fall pregnant and I believe they should have the right to decide whether or not they have the child.
This wasn't what the discussion was about, or at least not exactly. The discussion was about the rights of the father. If a woman gets pregnant and she doesn't want to have a child, but the man who made her pregnant and would be the father of that child wants that child to be born, does the woman have the right to get an abortion? The person I was discussing this with said "no". I say yes. I say, it's the woman's body, it's something growing inside of her, it's a nine-month process that can be dangerous, and painful and extremely emotional, not to mention it can have effects on her social position, therefore it's the woman's choice. Yes, the father put in 50% of the DNA, but he sure as hell isn't putting it 50% of the work (that goes into a pregnancy).
And then the question comes nagging. What if the father of the creature does not want to have a child at all? Not just, not be responsible, but (against all evolutionary logic) what if he just does not want to pass on any of his genetic material? Does the mother have the right to make this choice for him? I've heard arguments from both sides. For me, the only valid argument from the "it should be the mother's choice" side is that, just like a woman can't be forced to go through a pregnancy because it's her body, she can't be forced to go through with an abortion. Most other arguments for this side (such as, "as long as he's not legally responsible for the child and the child can't legally look for him, why should he care?") completely ignore the issue. I don't mean to say that I agree that if the father doesn't want a child the mother should have the abortion (I'm of the opinion that the mother should always have the final say), but I can see why this is such a thorny topic. In my opinion the best we can do is guarantee that only the person who wants to be responsible for the child ends up being responsible to the child. A parent should have the right to anonymity, if he or she so desires it. Recently the laws changed regarding egg and sperm donors in the UK. If you have donated sperm or eggs after 2005, any offspring that might be conceived from your donation have the right to find you once they become 18. I will not pretend to understand a person's need to meet their biological parents, since I have known mine all my life. However, I do understand a person's desire to remain anonymous. I have considered donating eggs a few times (I may do so yet) and one of my main reasons for not doing so in the UK is the fact that I wouldn't be anonymous. I would hate my child approaching me in 18 years time. I would feel guilty. Responsible. Some might say that this is how I'm supposed to feel, after all, they are my child. But I don't think this is fair. With any luck, this child was born to a couple (or a single parent) who couldn't have children any other way. With any luck, this child was born, and had a loving family that raised them. Why should they need to meet me? I only gave my DNA. I didn't have any rights over them, why should they have any rights over me? (Please, if someone can shed any light on this question for me, leave a comment, I really want to know what the reasoning is behind eliminating anonymity from sperm and egg donations).
I read back through what I have written and some points, some truths about what I think, shock me. In an ideal work, this discussion shouldn't have to exist. Every child would be wanted. Anyone who wanted a child would be able to have one without the need for anyone else. This is not the world we live in. Maybe one day.
Hej, for once we agree ;)
ReplyDeleteNot on the women/men aren't equal thing but on:
the person (A) providing half the genetic information for a future child does not have the right to decide on what the other person (B), who's providing half of the genetic info + environment + energy for the embryo to actually become a child, does to their body.
Maybe breaking it down more precisely than man/woman shows you where I'm going with this.
I have a lot of logical arguments to show why the person B in the description above has "all" the say.
The main one is just that I'm all for the person A to keep the "child", but at the stage when person B would be considering an abortion, it's not yet a child. So yeah, by all means, person A can get the embryo, but doesn't have the organs to keep it going themselves. Until we have technological advances (ie artificial uterus etc) to bring an embryo to term outside a person's body, it seems logical to me that person B should retain a right to their bodily integrity.
And obviously, person A doesn't have the right to make person B abort against their will because of bodily integrity.
But yeah, maybe some different laws after the child is born ? Maybe sperm-providers should be more careful when they have sex ? (I know this argument is sexist because it's the same one used against women, and there just aren't any contraceptive options for men other than condoms - maybe compaign for this ?)
Maybe you talk about this in Part 2 ?
What do you think of the logicality (is this a word ?) of the argument above ?
I completely agree with you, thus my comment at the end on this not being a "perfect" world.
DeleteIn a perfect world, men and women would be able to choose when they want to be able to reproduce. It would be (in a sense) completely one-sided: if I don't want to have children I can just decide not to, regardless of what my sex partner decides.
In this perfect world, there would be no need to divide between men and women of course, because it would just be people. And your above A and B division would hold :)
For now, since the woman is the one who can gestate, she's the one who should decide.
And absolutely, there is a case for men being more careful if they don't want children, but we all know about accidental pregnancies, and what then? I mean, I believe that it should be the woman's choice (as I've explained above) but the argument still holds that if a guy doesn't want a kid at all he shouldn't have to have one. In the case of an accidental pregnancy, he could have worn a condom and it could have broken. Or what about if a girl decides to poke holes in a condom? (Haven't actually heard of this happening to someone but the story and the possibility is absolutely out there). Morally, this guy has done nothing wrong, and still he doesn't get to choose whether or not he has a kid (again, I think it's still the woman's choice, but I think there is a case for saying that this is unfair and sexist).
oh, therefore, that's the argument for why it's not sexist to think the "women" has the final say in all cases about abortion
ReplyDelete