Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
22 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

What really lies behind the "war on women"

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 7   Valuable 6   Must Read 5  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H1 5/25/12

Become a Fan
  (50 fans)

opednews.com

Cross-posted from The Guardian


Are women suddenly running rampant in the streets by the millions, threatening society in unexpected ways?

You would surely think so by looking at the pattern that is visible across the nation: state by state, a well-funded legislative war on women is being unleashed. Many of these new proposed bills, or recently passed state laws, attack in novel ways women's rights to ownership of their bodies and their basic life choices, which second-wave feminists thought long won.

Planned Parenthood appears to be target No 1: Maine, Texas, Arizona, Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, North Carolina and Kansas have all either had bills to defund Planned Parenthood successfully passed or else bills introduced to begin the process of defunding.
 
Target No 2 is abortion rights. Since 2011, 92 new laws against abortion took effect, in 11 states: some states, such as Tennessee, are passing creative new restrictions on abortion rights. On 12 April, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a new law banning abortions later than 18 weeks after fertilization, and imposing new regulations making abortion more difficult to obtain.

Other bills impose waiting periods for women after they have sought medical help -- so that they are forced to "think it over" in a manner, and for a period, mandated by the state. A law in Utah requires women to wait 72 hours after receiving medical counselling, for instance, before having an abortion. A similar law is passed in South Dakota.

Finally, some bills -- in a way that defies the US constitution -- limit or criminalize certain kinds of speech to pregnant women: a law in Kansas would allow medical professionals to refuse giving abortion-seeking women information about clinics and doctors.
 
But women who want abortions aren't just facing a closing window of time to get the procedure done, or a mandated wait to extend an already agonizing decision period, or a longer journey to find an abortion provider. They and their medical teams are also increasingly likely to risk facing criminal charges -- or even violence. A bill that was under consideration in South Dakota last year would have recast killing an abortion provider as "justifiable homicide." It was later shelved.

What is this flurry of legislation about? Is it about the sanctity of life?

I would love to believe that -- and some grassroots opposition to abortion rights does, indeed, I have argued elsewhere, arise from a genuinely feminist perspective on social conditions that treat women as disposable sexual objects, and women's fertility as without value, or as an inconvenience to a consumer sexual culture; and these give desperate pregnant women no options at all except termination. Feminists for Life is an organization that I respect a great deal -- though I don't agree with their policy goals -- for creating a seamless pro-life feminist analysis of this kind.

But the groups and representatives that are wallpapering state legislatures with identikit legislation to penalize women's sexual and reproductive rights are the same bloc that gleefully kill food stamp programs used by the same desperate women if they choose to bear the child. This is the same constituency that happily supports sending moms of small children who are in the military into harm's way in corporate wars of choice. So what is this push deriving from?

I had an "Aha" moment recently in Oxford. I was speaking about the British Contagious Diseases Acts -- legislation passed in the 1860s that caused thousands of women be arrested and locked up for up to eight months at a time for looking as if they might have had sex. A graduate student asked me, perceptively, if I had looked at this issue in relation to issues of empire at that time, and another student noted in response that imperial British forces had, at around the same time, set up a complex and expansive equivalent of "lock hospitals" to incarcerate and manage prostitutes in colonised regions.

It was a moment of realisation for me because, indeed, that is what empire does; and that is what empire is doing now: systems of control are practiced and, in a sense, perfected "elsewhere" on "the other"; and then, they are too temptingly effective to gatekeepers not to bring them home to use, at length, on their own populations.

Some have argued that this present "war on women" is a war against progressivism -- or a war against feminism, in particular. I would say, looking at the big picture, that it is more serious than that -- not that those options are not plenty serious enough. I would say that the call for transvaginal probes, for gagging medical providers, for sending the state to shake a finger for an extra 72 hours at a distressed woman and stand between her and the discussion she is having with her inner-most and private conscience, is all part of the larger crackdown we see on privacy, private space, freedom and personal choice.

It is on the same spectrum of control: the will to gag Bradley Manning or Julian Assange also seek to gag a medical provider in South Dakota. The same impulse to peer into personal emails and listen to private phone calls that has led the NSA to pour billions into surveillance stations in Utah, is the same impulse of panopticon state control that wants to get between the sheets of men and women in consensual sexual decision-making, and monitor or restrict their access to condoms and contraception. And it is the same Big Brother impulse for control that maintains that what a woman does with her own care-provider is a function of state management.

In other words, women have always had their sexuality managed, surveilled, and controlled by governments; this has been called "gender." I have said here before that getting granular with people's sexual privacy is one of the standard forms of traumatizing state control which closing societies reach for.
 
But in fact, the bigger crackdown shows us that it is merely the genderized manifestation of state control. This impulse to mediate and regulate personal choices has been inflamed, I would argue, not by women being particularly uppity -- but by people being uppity. The awakening of protesting and demanding behavior of Occupy communities and of Ron Paul supporters, of the unions in Wisconsin, and the students in Montreal, and the rebellious Greeks in Athens, has made the gatekeepers seek every kind of method of control available to them.

So, identical bills have been proposed in Albany, New York to criminalize anonymous postings online -- to "protect business people and government officials" from criticism.  And the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act has language legalizing the directing of propaganda at United States citizens. And so on.

Dusting off the same old panoply of woman- and sex-controlling initiatives -- with updated and technological twists -- is simply a useful extension of the general arsenal of control whose purpose is to manage and subdue what is generally an increasingly insubordinate population. We can see this backlash through a feminist lens. But we miss an important insight if we restrict our vision to the feminist lens alone.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://naomiwolf.org/

Author, social critic, and political activist Naomi Wolf raises awareness of the pervasive inequities that exist in society and politics. She encourages people to take charge of their lives, voice their concerns and enact change. Wolf's landmark (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The People Versus The Police

How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses

How the Mitt Romney video killed the American Dream

What the Occupy movement must learn from Sundance

The coming drone attack on America

The Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
17 people are discussing this page, with 22 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I always have to laugh at femin(ism).   Jus... by Ned Lud on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 5:52:35 AM
ie   "never cry wolf ",  get it?... by Bob Gormley on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 10:10:58 AM
1.  You take way too long to make your headli... by Randy Fritz on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 9:31:10 AM
   What do you mean by equal?  If y... by Bob Gormley on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 10:14:08 AM
Not claiming to be an expert here but my understan... by MInorth30 on Monday, May 28, 2012 at 5:04:38 AM
Great article, Naomi.  I just submitted an ar... by Burl Hall on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 9:37:18 AM
Of course this phenomena is about control.  T... by Natasha Taylor on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 9:54:49 AM
War on women is not fought by "empire" or governme... by BFalcon on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 10:36:32 PM
Between the Mormons and the Muslims, women are scr... by Ginger McClemons on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 8:43:21 PM
to anything that I said. Demons? who are they?... by BFalcon on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 10:58:05 PM
"Finally, some bills -- in a way that defies the... by Dar Gary on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 9:54:53 AM
And I agree with you, Naomi was wrong. This would ... by BFalcon on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 10:23:59 PM
It simply states that they can refuse to give refe... by Dar Gary on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 11:37:37 PM
  There's only one problem with all this. The... by Bob Gormley on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 10:09:03 AM
Another interesting analysis from Naomi Wolf... by Barbara Roberts on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 10:42:42 AM
All these laws seek to prevent POOR women from hav... by lwarman on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 11:27:39 AM
Women should get a plan, I agree. I have thou... by Sheila Dean on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 12:37:17 PM
Most women with whom I work are more concerned abo... by Samantha Savanah on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 6:12:09 PM
I agree that the basic psychological factor that i... by Philip Pease on Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 9:53:24 AM
For time immortal, people have always been trying ... by Doc McCoy on Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 10:25:50 AM
Naomi made some interesting points. Obviously she ... by Carol Davidek-Waller on Sunday, May 27, 2012 at 11:47:49 PM
and I needed a referral because the service I requ... by Meryl Ann Butler on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 5:50:12 AM