Anti-Misogyny / Pro-Choice Politics

Anti-Misogynist Action: Day 239

This entry is dedicated to Maureen.

Yesterday afternoon, I once again counter-picketed pro-lifers. I took my zombie high priest costume and a really (truly) excellent pair of sunglasses to the corner across the street from an abortion clinic. My sign said “Who is the patron saint of misogyny?”

They didn’t get the joke, but just about everybody else did.

I was joined by a single other pro-choicer, and we had a delightful time. I maintained silence from the moment I assumed a position next to the man with Donald Trump hair, who quickly became uncomfortable and somehow thought that standing on the very edge of the sidewalk would deter me from standing right next to him. He was wrong.

An important thing about these demonstrations is that every one of the pro-life protesters has been previously trained to a) not smile or laugh, because what they are doing is very serious work; b) not occupy their time with idle chatter, because they are there for a Higher Cause; and c) now allow themselves to get angry or agitated, because that’s what they are supposed to be inducing in other people. And an equally important observation I’ve made is that every single one of the pro-life protesters I picketed there yesterday violated every single one of these points in their own protocol.

I circulated about their gathering on just the one corner, making sure that at various times throughout the nearly two hours, I was standing next to different protesters. After an hour, I began silently pointing at them from across the street, while traffic was stopped and they stood with their sandwich boards facing the public, trying to shame women for having rights. Many people took my picture as I stood next to the man with the Donald Trump hair. Lots of people got angry at the people in sandwich boards, and lots of people smiled, laughed, or thanked my companion and I for being there.

In all the silence, I realized why I worked through my instinctual belief late last year, that the pro-life movement has something to do with white supremacy. However, racism is just one side of it, as it is an explicitly colonial dialogue in the larger scale. Alliance with the pro-life movement leads enormous masses of individual voters to cast their ballots in favour of white male, middle- or upper-class, culturally chauvinistic leadership candidates. Those very same candidates promote colonial war, wage-slavery, loosening gun control laws, de-funding important social programs and public education, and letting the poorest in the country simply starve to death. Alliance with the pro-life movement also leads those same enormous masses of individual people to accumulate as much wealth as they can get their hands on while freely giving a cut of it to the Catholic church every pay cheque. And what does the Catholic church do with that money? It spiritually colonizes other countries, tells millions of devouts that misogyny and homophobia are legitimate expressions of their faith, and hoards whatever amount it can spare from the budget.

It’s only logical that those millions of people would then campaign the government to deprive gays and women of as many rights as possible; that is, when they aren’t busy either lining up around the block to throw more of their money at an already gigantic corporation (that relies entirely on wage-slavery) when it is nationally exposed for its homophobic policies, or filling the streets outside an abortion clinic with rape-apologetics and other misogynistic propaganda. For any freedom afforded to the colonized stands to threaten the continuation of colonialism — and what would it even mean if people no longer aspired towards accumulation of wealth?

What’s fascinating to me is the sheer magnitude of cognitive dissonance it requires for someone to wish upon future generations, that they be born into this system of oppression. Especially when this system of oppression is here, largely due to the fact that it was once overseas, and people ran for their lives from it when beheading their leadership wasn’t enough to eradicate it there.

How sincerely can any pro-lifer actually say that they value all human life, when their political leanings and decisions directly promote and perpetuate widespread slavery, genocide, and ecocide that threatens future generations yet to be conceived?

How sincerely can any individual pro-lifer hold themselves to the believe that a single abortion is an act of murder (or even genocide), when everything they stand for perpetuates the very same atrocities against millions of people, that they are fighting to stop against a single individual for a mere nine months?

Some of these individuals have even told me to my face that they are out on that street corner, passing out pamphlets in their sandwich boards, making up excuses for why rape and incest are OK (or even a gift from God) if it results in a pregnancy, and shaming all women for even having rights, out of compassion for the women accessing services at the clinic. Meanwhile, in privacy, they campaign the government through phone calls, letter-writing, and who they hand their money and their vote over to, for the end goal of taking women’s rights away.

When confronted with facts about miscarriage — such as that it is responsible for more missed abortions than successful pregnancies — they pretend it either doesn’t happen or that it’s somehow the expectant mother’s fault (even if she didn’t know she was pregnant, because the fertilized embryo had not successfully adhered to the rich lining of her uterus). They do nothing to prevent or even research what is surely, in their framework, a horrible and unnecessary atrocity, because God meant for it to happen. Just like God wanted some women to be raped. I guess God wanted men to hate women, women to hate each other, and all his wealthy, pale-skinned Creation (a relatively small proportion of the human race) to enslave and murder the darker-skinned and impoverished majority of his Creation (who all became poor by virtue of slavery and genocide).

No, pro-lifers, you are not “pro-life”. You are a hate movement.

10 thoughts on “Anti-Misogynist Action: Day 239

  1. Hey – is there a place where people can contact you about stuff that is unrelated to a post? I heard you were wanting to do a piece on the Indian Act – and am well versed on that, – and not black nor white on it either.

    It can’t be taken away in a heartbeat, as I’m sure you are aware. This is because it would cause a lot of harm to the Indigenous of this land, even though it harms them currently. Just imagine if suddenly, rents were due…(Yes, I know the majority pay taxes – I’m referring to “rent”)

    I wonder if you could write a piece about how the Royal Proclamation and Indian Act contradict themselves – hence, why the Royal Proclamation is still so important…

    Is it possible that the Indigenous of these lands were “objectified” through the Indian Act, and that the British Monarch cut ties after having secured trade routes throughout, simply because her empire was coming to an end, and this land no longer served her? I mean to project the idea that the Royal Proclamation actually protected the Indigenous of this land far more than the Indian Act ever hoped to (and that it was on purpose) – but that many First Nations today (INM) are mis-interpreting the role of the so-called “Crown”

    It’s true that the Crown intended to “own” this land – but it’s also ironic that the Royal Proclamation protects First Nations far more than the Indian Act does – which may be why a lot of Indigenous are asking for the Queen to intervene – but her role was given up a long time ago. (Think about it – the Crown wanted to protect Indigenous from settling with settlers, because that meant the Crown would lose her % of profits – the Crown didn’t want SETTLERS owning the land – and it has now backfired…do you get me?)

    I wonder if you can write a piece to render why this happened, in terms of the fact that the crown “objectified” the people – and left them defenseless against the Indian Act under asshole Scott…

    It’s a hint…for things I think you want to conclude.

    If you get what I’m hinting at, you may yet again re-read what I wrote in the last post, and wonder if I really am your total critic, or whether or not I have faith that you may yet come to some pretty awesome and wholesome conclusions that aid the people you care about…

    • When you click on my display picture (gravatar), my email is listed. I’m also on Twitter and everything on my Facebook is public.

      I guess it depends on who you hear from, because there are certain groups of people who only take a few weeks to connect all of them.

      I appreciate the suggestion. My focus on my first piece of writing/YouTube video about the Indian Act will just be about the Indian Act. That’s a matter of strategic decision-making for the time being. I think you might even be surprised what conclusion I’ve already reached about the Indian Act (in and of itself) after reading its current revision (and a list of previous revisions) yesterday.

  2. No – I am not suprised. I think you have a ton to offer. I think your entire blog is an explorative space that allows people the chance to think and discuss things that are not in the regular media….

    My last post to you, was to simply express my disappointment. I think you have tons to offer, and I sincerely hope you learn how to offer your knowledge, without stepping on ANY toes. My concern was about you walking through Indigenous spaces, with judgement – because I feel it’s the last thing Indigenous peoples need. Of course, they are divided – no doubt about that! But let them deal with that in their own space. I truly hope you will consider this, and grow from it, rather than taking it as an “attack” on you, or your character, your thoughts, ideas, or perspective.

    I commend you for your piece on the Indian Act – as with most of your blog. I really do hope you look into the RP vs the Indian Act – because I think you are influential in your writing, and my hope is that more writers like you, will be able to look at these differences, and make sense of them.

    When I cause you offense – I hope you can hold it close to your heart, and wonder why I cause that strike. If you look deep within who you are – I’m sure that you will understand someday, why it’s wrong for those of us (who aren’t Indigenous) to judge those who are – even if we mean to show solidarity with a certain side.

    Indigenous peoples deserve a space for figuring out their own politics, without us interfering….that was all I meant to say…and I mean that – from the bottom of my heart. We have no place telling them how to run thier affairs, or how they should feel divided, etc.

    With the Indian Act, Royal Proclamation, and that that DOES include people like you and me? For sure – you have every right to speak your views, without being attacked for it.

    I hope you continue to write – and that you at least consider the idea that our place is not just subtle, but somewhat culturalized/defined. There shouldn’t be a problem for any of us to talk about that which affects all of us – but where Indigenous movements are concerned – we should support, or remain silent. Even if their movements affect you and me, they are affected far more…..and that’s why we should refrain from offering criticism.

    They have been criticized far more than enough! AND – they criticize eachother enough, that we don’t need to have a voice there. Let them weed out their own differences…

    Writing about the Indian Act and Royal Proclamation is very different, because Settlers need to understand the details, in order to get on with the future….

    • You’re confusing critique, judgment, or opinion of a person’s actions for critique, judgement, or opinion of the person him/herself. I don’t make that same confusion, and the people I speak to who inspire some of my writings either know this or find something to nit-pick about until they walk the other way.

      There is nothing subtle about whiteness in a white supremacist colonial culture.

  3. What happened to what you wrote about the Indian Act? Or did I simply dream about it….? Just went to re-read, and can’t find it. Perhaps it was a dream….I too, have been thinking about these things very hard….

  4. You’re confusing critique, judgment, or opinion of a person’s actions for critique, judgement, or opinion of the person him/herself. I don’t make that same confusion, and the people I speak to who inspire some of my writings either know this or find something to nit-pick about until they walk the other way.

    There is nothing subtle about whiteness in a white supremacist colonial culture.
    No – I’m merely pointing out the fact that when white people walk through indigenous spaces, to criticize those we disagree with – we are bound to cause harm… And obviously, you have…..

    I agree with what you have to say – but I know it’s not our place, as non-indigenous, to voice our issues…against those who are indigenous.

    Part of this is OUR battle – but the majority of it, is not…

    Carry on…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s