20 Jan 2006, Comments Off on Coming out with guns blazin’

Coming out with guns blazin’

Author: Helen



Well, I’ve got to get going. As conventional wisdom has it, I’ve been sitting on my arse this last month, doing sweet buggerall, with only two children on school holidays as an excuse.

I’m only paid for 48 months of the year, so I can spend school holidays with kids and don’t have to go through the absolute screaming nightmare that is Holiday Program. Now, I just have to learn to cope with eight weeks a year with little boys. Don’t get me wrong! I love ’em. They’re just a lot of hard work. It’s like herding cats.

But despite the proliferation of good bloggers here in Australia, it has to be all hands to the pumps this year to make any impression on the avalanche of shit that is going to be poured all over us, the plain people of Australia. I’m thinking of moving more towards gender-related topics, with a sideline in environmental stuff – and let’s just see how long I can stick to this resolution.

Because, really, the avalanche of shit in the gender department has become quite outstanding in its stickiness and general horseshittiness. Let me give four examples of ye olde anti-feminist arguments which are being revived for the new millenium:

Don’t bother giving her a job, she’ll only leave to get married and have kids.

AKA a suggestion by Richard Posner, senior lecturer, judge and blogger, that law schools should raise tuition fees with a program of rebates to graduates who work full time; the rationale being the useless women students who clog up the works with their equal-or-better entry scores and then drop out for any number of years to raise children. To refuse admission to women, he admits, would be unlawful, so he is suggesting some new way of discouraging them.

This idea has had very little traction among Australian bloggers as far as I can see, except for James McConvill, who has to be some kind of saint. There is no argument or hypothesis so bad that his blog won’t give the poor thing a home. Give me your tired arguments, your poor arguments, your huddled hypotheses yearning to be free (of facts)! But, given the way our nutty Minister for Education likes to adopt all new things from the US, we should be cautious. Especially since Posner’s idea was predicated on:

Many women at elite colleges want to be SAHMs (US slang for “stay at home Moms”) so Femininism has Failed ner-ner!

This was a story featured in a New York times article by Louise Story, published on 20 September. Echidne, Katha Pollitt and Jack Shafer (editor of Slate.com) discuss the sloppy surveying techniques and reporting biases behind this media beat-up. But as Echidne points out, these beat-ups have a way of getting into the Conventional Wisdom of the mainstream media.

But women aren’t really people, are they?…

Not really respectable to articulate out loud these days, but Backdown Barnaby Joyce really put the finger on it with his ripper quote of 2005: “If I shoot a woman and don’t kill her but kill the baby, I haven’t actually committed a crime?”

Now I did predict a return of the “do women have souls” question on the CIB. You read it here first. I hope all you uppity women know now just where you stand in the Coalition universe.

…But we know what’s best for them!

This oldie-but-goodie is getting a fresh run in the RU486 (availability of) debate. The more cunning of the anti-choice crowd – and who more cunning than our health minister, Tony Abbott– have tried to frame the debate in terms of safety. You see, after a medical abortion, a woman’s uterus might retain some of the contents which might lead to septicaemia, or she might actually have an ectopic pregnancy, or something… so if we allowed RU486 to be prescribed, all these rural and remote women would just be dying after taking it behind the hayshed with the local doctor a plane ride away.

Trouble is, the exact same thing applies to early pregnancy and natural miscarriage (as well as the other gynaecological icky things that flesh is heir to.) So, in order to attain this level of safety that the opponents of medical abortion would like, it would be necessary to outlaw sex itself, at least in outlying areas.

Some of the wingnuttier anti-choicers are protesting against having sex which does not result in pregnancy, full stop. But then the “safety” argument falls down again, because you would still be dealing with pregnancies and their complications. But the “safety concerns” sound so logical, so reasonable, many people won’t look behind it to see the hype.

If you haven’t had enough yet, go and check out the 7th Carnival of Feminists over at Feministe.

(Image from here, via Metafilter.)

Comments (0)

  • Zoe says:

    Nice post Helen. For more Barnaby goodness, dont miss

  • Cast Iron Balcony

    With the passing of Red Rag, it’s good to see that Cast Iron Balcony has started the year with a resolution to take no prisoners. I don’t always agree with her particular brand of feminism, but I do like reading what she has to say. Mind y…

  • Baroness Ballarat says:

    well if you agreed with CIB, you wouldn’t be a Curmudgeon would you?

    Whenever I dwell on the motive of the anti’s, I keep coming back to ‘sex’. Their campaigns are not really about saving foetii – they are about ‘punishing women who have had sex’. They all think sex is evil and so it must have Consequences. And in ref to previous post about SAHM law graduates, if you happen to be a ‘knocked-up without-planning it’ lady lawyer, then the anti’s would have you endure it to term and prove the Human Resource Manager’s claim to be correct.

    only paid for 48 months? weeks?

  • susoz says:

    (late comment as I too was on hols…)
    Then there was the letter published in the SMH (possibley The Age too) a couple of weeks ago from some old life saving vet saying life saving was going to the dogs as there were too many women allowed in.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.