Pornography's Influence on the War on Women

I've been wondering lately about why the Virginia legislators thought it was acceptable to legislate transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions (or, in other words, demand the state sanctioned rape of a woman with a foreign object in response to her asserting her right to reproductive freedom) and why women expressed so little outrage about this. Maybe you think we've expressed lots of outrage. I don't think we've come close to expressing enough.


Today, my thoughts are on how pornography has both become part of the war on women and affected our response to it. 


About a month ago, I was at a fundraiser for a local sexual health organization. They were showing the documentary Miss Representation. It describes the portrayal of women in popular culture. It's a good film. I recommend seeing it. It doesn't go as far in its analysis as an earlier documentary (actually a series of four documentaries) by Jean Kilbourne called Killing us Softly. I recommend seeing these films too. Kilbourne, who is also interviewed in Miss Representation, has a much better take on pornography and makes the links between the portrayal of women in advertising and popular culture and the portrayal of women in pornography much clearer. Miss Representation soft pedals this a bit. I thought a lot about why as I was watching.


At the end of the film, there was a Q&A session in which a young woman announced herself as a "pro-pornography feminist." Ahhh, I thought. That's why. The creator of Miss Representation knows her audience, knows what young women today are thinking. She knows that there is this creature out there who calls herself a pro-pornography feminist. Pornography has gone mainstream, much moreso than in the pre-internet days when Kilbourne was making Killing Us Softly.


I'm generally not absolutist about much, but seriously, anyone who calls herself feminist and pro-pornography is confused about the basic ideas of feminism, or possibly about the meaning of pornography. Perhaps they are confusing pornography with erotica or with the notion of being "sex-positive."  Definitions are important here.  The word "erotica" is rooted in “eros” or “passionate love." It inlcudes positive choice, free will and the yearning for a particular person. It leaves open the question of gender.  There is no power imbalance in erotica – not even in the power of the gaze. In erotica, sexuality is celebrated. There is power with, not power over. There is mutuality, desire, respect.


Pornography lacks this. The word pornography is rooted in prostitution or female slavery. There is always a power imbalance, either explicitly depicted or in the gaze of the viewer/consumer. The word ends with the root meaning of “writing about” or “description of” which puts still more distance between the subject and object and replaces a spontaneous yearning for closeness with objectification and voyeurism. Pornography takes power away from women in sexual expression and asserts male supremacy. It is the outward expression of patriarchy and misogyny and turns women into objects to be fucked, existing only to enable sexual gratification. To be clear, in pornography, other men can also exist for men's sexual gratification. Anyone can be objectified and dominated. (And women can objectify others too.) But this is the key: pornography makes people into objects. It creates "the other" and the other's needs, wants and feelings are of no concern. Neither is their safety, psychologically or physically. In pornography, someone is always being exploited. That's what makes it pornography. Pornography is patriarchy and misogyny in action.


Feminism, as I've always understood it, is broadly about women's empowerment. So how can anyone call themselves a pro-pornography feminist? Similarly,  how can anyone be anti-choice and feminist? You can't claim feminism and at the same time claim that it is acceptable to impose your will over another woman.


As I was thinking about this, I read a timely post from "I Blame The Patriarchy" about pornography. I could direct you to the works of Andrea Dworkin and other feminist theorists, but if you want the short version, read this post. And I do urge you to read it. To quote the Spinster Aunt:

"Pornography is the graphic representation, not just of violence against women, but of male supremacy. It degrades all women. It erodes the humanity of all women. Porn use fetishizes violence and supports male supremacy. Porn is the expression of patriarchy. Porn use is the practice of patriarchy."

Spinster Aunt describes how we've been sold a terrible bill of goods. She writes:

"Convincing women that they are being unreasonable, that dudely porn use is natural, normal, and even necessary-for-his-health behavior, and therefore you should support his porn use, and by the way you’ll never even find a dude who doesn’t use porn — this is one of the most successful misogynist campaigns of the modern megatheocorporatocracy."

Our misogynist abusers have succeeded in convincing a generation of women, even women who call themselves feminist, that pornography is okay, it's natural, every man uses it, it's unreasonable to expect them not to, that women are empowered by using it too, and if we do expect something better, that is our problem, not theirs.

I'm wondering how thirty years of the pornification of our culture has aided and abetted the war on women and brought women onside in a war against our own selves. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome. Are we so accustomed now to being pornified, so coopted into believing that we must go along with our abusers, that we can no longer speak up against state sanctioned rape? Pornography is a tool of the oppressor. It is used to beat us into submission. Now we have elected officials saying it's okay for the state to rape women who don't behave as they think women should. These things have to be related. To quote Robin Morgan, "Pornography is the theory, rape is the practice."

More on Virginia and the War on Women

You probably already know, the Virginia legislature is backing down. This is a good op ed piece on what has transpired.

The responses to the state sanctioned rape bill have been interesting and frankly, not outraged enough in my opinion. Much of the blowback has been only about contraception. Proposing vasectomy limits for men makes a point, but alas, it is women who would suffer most as a result of this, as women always do when contraception is scarce. The women of Second City did a good job illustrating the stupidity of having all male panels make these decisions. I particularly liked the Daily Show's take on recent events, especially because Stewart focussed on the rape aspect of the forced transvaginal ultrasound and used the "wand" in their graphic (see Feb 21 episode).

Best yet though: Another march on Washington is in the works.  The We Are Woman March will take place April 28. Let's hope it gets as big as the March for Women's Lives did in 2004. Hmmm. Maybe it's time to visit Washington again.

(Added February 25) And just because they're not legislating rape anymore, doesn't mean they're better people. See this recent article from NPR.

Virginia women are mobilizing

Happily, the women of Virginia and their allies are mobilizing. Having posted the horror story about new legislation, I thought I would also post this story about action being taken against it.

In 2004, I went down to Washington for the March for Women's Lives. That's where I took many of the pictures on this website. There were over a million women marching, although media often reported less. A few of us from Alberta who were associated with Planned Parenthood went to support our sisters to the south. It was an incredible experience. I've never felt safer in a crowd. The women were true allies, sisters in spirit. I think this is when I first thought of writing the play, The Abortion Monologues, although I hadn't given it a title yet. Young women were wearing t-shirts that read, "I had an abortion." I thought they were incredibly brave. There were senior women with canes and walkers and in wheelchairs with their daughters and grand daughters, women carrying babies and pushing strollers, women laughing, women crying, women protecting their right to control their own bodies. Everyone helped each other, held each other's babies, shared food and supplies and bandaids. I remember hearing a woman sneeze behind me and I reached into my purse to hand her a kleenex and when I turend around, five other women were already holding one out.

Solidarity is important. If you are in the Virginia area and can participate in actions against these new laws, I urge you to do so. I have no doubt you will find yourself inspired, enlighted, frustrated and empowered when you join forces with other pro-choice allies and reproductive justice groups. If you're American, go to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood websites and surf around. Find out what's going on. If you're Canadian, go to Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC-CDAC) and keep informed on what's happening here, or "like" the ARCC facebook page to keep updates coming. Pay attention to those awful anti-choice MPs that are trying to take your rights away.

Sometimes I'm afraid that young women in Canada take their right to choice for granted.  At the same time, it has always been my goal that young women can live in a world where their rights are so secure that losing them is unthinkable. But we're not there yet. What these men (and they are mostly men) want to do to you is serious. Keep an eye on them. They are not just a punch line, although I dearly wish they were. They mean you harm.

Virginia is Punishing Women

If you want to know why anti-choicers must be stopped, read this. Make sure you look at all the links, especially the Rachel Maddow show. If you read this blog, you are probably already aware that Virginia has decided a fertilized egg is a person. The new law jeopardizes most common forms of contraception.

Now they have another law forcing women seeking an abortion to have a transvaginal ultrasound without their consent. The doctor has no option and there is no medical reason for the ultrasound. The government, the government they say they want to be small, is now dictating medical practice and forcing a probe into women's vaginas. The only possible reason can be to punish them. I don't know about you, but it sounds a lot like they just said it's okay to rape a woman with an object because she wants an abortion.

The slippery slope has slipped here now. I cannot fathom what I would do if I lived in Virginia right now, if I lived in the United States. Don't let it happen here. I feel like I am writing about a fictional story right now, but it is all too real. I am beyond horrified. The anti-choicers here, the Trosts and Woodworths and the perveyors of fetus porn and the pregnancy care centres must be stopped. It has to stop. Because this is where it goes. I can't even say this is where it ends. I don't know what happens after legislating the penetration of women seeking abortions. I'll leave that to Margaret Atwood. But this is not the end.

The clash of rights between the fetus and the mother

Joyce Arthur, the Executive Director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, has written an excellent article about why fetuses cannot be given the status of persons, a response to MP Woodworth's statement that the fetus must be given personhood. Please read it  in full here, in the Guelph Mercury. I would like to excerpt what I find to be the most vital piece here:

"As it happens, the Criminal Code’s definition of human being that defines personhood at birth is even more correct today than it was 400 years ago under common law. Women now have established constitutional rights in Canada under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to life, liberty, bodily security, conscience, and equality, all of which are directly implicated in women’s decisions around pregnancy. In contrast, fetuses do not have legal rights and cannot be given any, since two beings occupying the same body would result in a serious clash of rights. In fact, if fetuses had legal personhood, pregnant women would lose theirs."

Thank you to Joyce Arthur for finding a way to put this so accurately and succinctly.

Sex Selection and Designer Babies

Sex selection is in the news again, as is the threat and/or promise of designer babies.

One of the characters in my play, The Abortion Monologues, is a woman in her forties who already has three children. She finds herself with an unintended pregnancy. Her husband is unsure that he is willing to start again, and would like to consider abortion. She cannot even say the word. He suggests she have amniocentesis because if the baby is "abnormal" it will help them make a decision. The monologue continues as follows:

"I said I would never do it because the baby's not perfect. It feels bad to me, like I'm making a decision about this particular child, rejecting it because of some quality it has that I don't want, like I'm shopping or something. How can you say to a child, 'If it weren't for this, (points at nothing in the air)... or this, I'd love you.' I think you take what God gives you. I think if you can love someone, you love them without conditions. What does it matter if they have Down's Syndrome or eleven fingers or they're albino, or whatever. If you see what I mean. Better to do it without knowing. You either want a child or not. It can't have anything to do with who it will be, or how it will be."

This woman knows what she believes. Many would disagree with her. They would argue that there is  a place for testing. There is something to be said for knowing ahead of time if a child will have needs outside of what one expects, for having the time to plan, for getting one's head around it. I don't judge people who decide to terminate because anomalies are found. I understand that plenty of people feel overwhelmed by the possibility of additional care requirements and costs. They don't know if they're up for it, if their relationships can withstand it, if they can afford it. Maybe they have other children and looking after the additional needs of this one will detract too much from the others. And these parents can in no way depend on the social safety net anymore to help them. I get it.

Here's an analogy. At one point in my life, I was a teacher. I was not a special education teacher. I didn't have it in me. In fact, it didn't even cross my mind to specialize in that area and no one tried to force me to do so. It takes another kind of person than me to do this well. I've seen plenty of people do it well. I admire them and I'm grateful they do such wonderful work. Although I never personally taught special education, I feel good about my taxes supporting it. I never complain about it. In fact, I often think we pay too little in taxes, but know I am probably alone in that. I want to contribute to the lives of others, to help pay for their public education, their health care, and all other things they need. It's one way I can prove I actually care about others and can contribute to what I often lazily refer to as "the grand project," that is, the project of living together on the blue ball. And I know that excellent special education services move us towards a world in which all children's needs are met. This can only be good.

I've thought a great deal about what my character said in the years since I wrote her monologue. I have decided that although I see the other side, I like her, that she has a sense of what is ethical for her and she has thought it through. I know she will do what is right for her.

Another character in the play is about to have an abortion because she has learned she will have a girl. Being a girl is not an anomaly in the minds of people not mired in sexism and gender discrimination. From a human rights perspective, the idea of sex selection is abhorrent, but then again, the idea of selecting on the basis of ability/disability is abhorrent from this perspective as well. This character, the sex selecter, wants to conform to the wishes of her husband and be good in the eyes of her community. Her husband, her family, and her community want her to produce a boy. She knows what it is like to be a girl in her family and in her husband's family, and she knows this better than I do.

As a feminist, I have many concerns about aborting fetuses because they will one day emerge as a girl. I'm sad she feels she can't have this girl. But I can't make that call for her.  I know that, again, much of the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy depends on the support one has within the community.Yes, in a perfect world, girls would be as welcome as boys in all corners of it. In our imperfect world, they are not.

When making decisions about a pregnancy, we have to understand our lives as they are, not as we wish they were. It is a lucky woman who finds these two worlds have converged. For the rest of us, tough choices must be made.


The article about sex selection that I've linked to above talks about removing the option of aborting for reasons of sex selection from women by not letting them have the test until it is too late. Although I understand why this suggestion is being made, I find the suggestion terrible. We cannot get where we want to be through coercion or enforced ignorance. With all new reproductive and genetic technology, the genie is out of the bottle. We can't pretend it isn't there and it is insulting to women to decide for them or deny them access.


In the world of my dreams, all children are welcome and loved not just by their own mothers and families, but by a wider network of social support. While we strive to acheive that, we cannot blame women for dealing with what is real in their lives at this moment.

What we can do is try, as much as possible, to have open discussions, to explore what is real now and what we want to be real in the future, to understand what the gap is and how to bridge it. What I appreciate most about the journal's suggestion is that it has sparked and will continue to generate intense discussion on a critical issue. Individual choices are socially constructed. To focus wholly on one side of this without considering the other is a mistake. What seems like my choice as an individual is a choice made within a society that limits what is offered to me and tends to point me in a specific direction by making that direction seem more appealing or giving more social resources to it. If we want a world without sex selection, we had better end the inequality women currently face and work on shifting social conditions that favour boys and men. If we want a more inclusive world, we'd better start really believing all people are worthy of respect and human rights.

Denying a woman control over her body and hiding information from her is not a part of the solution; it is part of the problem.





To purchase the play, The Abortion Monologues, go to the website and click on "Purchase the Play."

Woodworth's Proposed "debate" unnecessary and unwanted

Shannon Dea has written a wonderful article in The Record describing the renewed calls for a so called abortion "debate" unnecessary and unwanted. In it, she lambastes MP Stephen Woodworth's proposal urging Parliament to examine the "unusual Canadian statute" that defines a human being. I suggest you read it. Dea describes quite clearly why Woodworth's rhetorical flourish that a baby has "sub-human" status while the little toe is still in the birth canal is merely attention seekeing tripe. He is quite wrong.

This is yet another red herring that obfuscates the real issue and tries, desperately, by incrementalism, to infringe on women's legal right to control our own bodies, plan our families and be conscious about our reproduction. It plays on the utterly wrong notion that women are having abortions right up to the day they are due. This doesn't happen, as we all know. The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Later abortions are rare and often performed to save the life of the mother or in cases where severe fetal abnormalities have been identified.

Dea's conclusion bears repeating. She writes, "In survey after survey, Canadians have been quite clear that they have no interest in reopening the abortion debate. Ultimately, Woodworth’s (news) release is no more than a superficial attempt to take advantage of the slow holiday news season, and not a serious effort to engage in deliberation and dialogue based on genuine data."

And let's not forget one other thing. Nothing happens in Conservative Land that isn't explicitly permitted by our control freak of a PM. To suggest that Woodworth is acting alone as a private member is another ruse that we all see through. The Conservatives are playing to their base, and you have to know Stephen Harper has given his blessing.