Dissent is a Fundamental Part of Democracy, by Rick Gunderman

An activist group called “No One Is Illegal” - which I am in full support of and whose Facebook group I am a member of - participated in a campaign which scored a major success against the Toronto Police Service (TPS). Migrant communities, women’s organizations, trade unions, social service workers, youth organizations and many others united to force the Toronto Police Services Board to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding undocumented immigrants. In their own words…

“Two years have passed and after numerous meetings, deputations and a tacit agreement from the Toronto Police Services Board of the need for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in their organization, no implementation plan has come from Chief Bill Blair.

Meanwhile migrant communities continue to be bullied, brutalized, apprehended and detained by Toronto police — who continue to work hand in hand with the Canadian Border Service Agency to implement Canada’s racist, classist, homophobic and ableist immigration policies!”

I say, without reservations, that No One Is Illegal is among the best activist groups in Canada. Theirs is a cause that I truly believe in: that all people of the world have the right to move across the borders that elite kings and politicians propped up for their own benefit, to divide and rule the population, and that those borders should ultimately cease to exist, much like in Europe.

As I write this, I can already hear a chorus of pissed-off reactionaries. “They’re illegal!”, “They’re a burden on our society!”, “They never assimilate!”, and so forth. It is quite irritating to me, as I can see the veiled racism that lies behind such comments, supposedly said in the name of “rule of law”, or “national good”, or whatever.

Was it “legal” when the pilgrims and settlers arrived, massacred the Native populations, didn’t learn Iroquois, Algonquin, or Huron, and established Christianity rather than adopt tribal beliefs? So what’s the big deal with others coming, living among us, and sharing our land? Are we afraid that they’ll do what European Canadians did to the Natives?

Many Canadians act as if this is our God-given land, that since we are born here that it is therefore ours and ours alone. But what it is that makes the land “ours”? Is it not just dirt, sitting on top of a thick layer of rock floating on a gigantic ball of magma? That’s all the land, “our country”, is: dirt. The attitude of Canadians (and Americans) amounts virtually to worshiping mud, at the rate that so-called “patriotism” is taking on a radically reactionary, land-based form. It seems we’ve conveniently forgotten that half of Canada’s provinces and territories have Native names, and many places throughout the United States, including many states, also have Native names.

These “Minutemen” patrolling the United States-Mexico border are nothing short of a reincarnated Ku Klux Klan. They are the modern-day Nathan Bedford Forrests and William Joseph Simmonses. They ride around in the back of pick-up trucks along the US-Mexico border, guns in hand, shooting at migrants attempting to enter the United States for a better life. They dehumanize the Mexican migrants, seeing them as barely above animals. Such similar tactics to the KKK, who rode around on horseback harassing, attacking, and even murdering innocent African-Americans, considering them sub-human.

Anti-immigrant sentiment is perhaps, at least in North America, among the most hypocritical ideologies. How can someone, whose ancestors in all likelihood immigrated at one point or another to North America, deny that very right to others? So it was okay for you and yours, but not them and theirs? Why?

Probably a lot of racism, for one. Maybe xenophobia, since even non-Anglophone European immigrants aren’t looked upon favourably, but that might be more political in nature (Russians, for example, may be seen as “commies”). A theory of mine is that it’s simply Anglo-American Chauvinism, considering that even French Canadians are often on the receiving end of negative Anglo attitudes. My own grandparents, arrivals from Germany post-World War 2, were occasionally harassed either for their accents or for being “Nazis”.

There is no rhyme or reason to the arguments of the anti-immigration camp. There are plenty of resources to go around, particularly if we are able to kick out the owners of our workplaces and collect their bounty, which we alone produce, for ourselves. Most immigrants do learn either English or French, and considering that we forced the Natives to learn those languages, maybe helping along the immigrants by learning the basics of some of their languages isn’t so bad an idea. It may even enrich us as individuals. And of all the immigrants I have met in my life, very, very few of them have said that they regret their decision to come to Canada.

Let’s tear down the borders everywhere, open our homelands and our heartlands to all those who wish to come see them, live on them, and work on them. Let’s make them feel welcomed and free so that we may all peacefully live together.

But that’s not even my point. My point was to say that these protests in favour of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy are necessary and are, to some degree, working. It seems that sometimes, when the people organize effectively, we can have our voices matter. We sure as hell can’t rely on the politicians to do the speaking for us.

Commentary on the US Political Process, by Rick Gunderman

*note: I will try to make this as fresh a commentary as I can, as I recognize that we’ve all heard enough about the problems, merits, shortcomings and benefits of the US political system. To that end, I will specifically talk about the way voters represent themselves and how the media interprets it at election time.

When election season comes around in Canada, some of us may be called by pollsters to ask us which party we plan to vote for. The results of those polls are broadcast and published in the news, showing a voter preference for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democrats, sometimes the Bloc Quebecois, and recently the Greens.

In the United States, voters are registered full-time as either Republican, Democratic, or “Independent”. Such is the nature of the US political system that narrows down to two “competing” parties that the only third option is a voter of “independence”. I have a hard time seeing Communist Party USA and Constitution Party members sitting comfortably together in this boat.

Truth be told, it isn’t that different than here in Canada, where three to five parties are represented, and none of the fourteen other registered parties are.

Even so, the Canadian polling process captures how people plan to vote, with the undecided choosing the “undecided” option. The American registration process, on the other hand, is structured in such a way that the established media applies the declared registration on a spectrum with the ultraconservative Republicans at one end, the neo-hippie liberal socialist Democrats at the other, and the mindless Independents in the middle.

But as I pointed out by using CPUSA and the Constitution Party as examples, there exist those beyond the Republicans and Democrats on their respective sides of the spectrum.

Which is why I find it odd that many pro-Democratic political commentators seem to believe that to win over the Independents, Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton…maybe…probably not…) must drag themselves more towards the centre of the American political system.

The graph on this website should illustrate just what it means to be a centrist caught between Republicans and Democrats in the States.

Hardly very “centrist”, is it? There’s maybe a needle between the two through which to wiggle, with some Democrats even being more authoritarian than some Republicans! Incredible.

Voter turnout for the 2004 Presidential election was a dismal 60.7%…the highest since 1968. Yes, the highest. And as far as I can tell, the 39.3% who didn’t bother must know what they’re missing out on: a superficially “divisive” election which, right down to the bone, is just another battle in the Civil War of Political Capitalism.

No wonder Independents are treated almost exclusively as the mindless middle between the “left of the right” and the “right of the right”! The registration process abandons the socialists, communists, social democrats and left liberals…and that’s just those to the left of the Democrats. As much as I despise what they stand for, I must also speak out against the anti-democratic forces’ attack on the anti-democratic forces of the far-right as well…grudgingly.

An Application of Cultural Autonomy, by Rick Gunderman

To illustrate what cultural autonomy means, I will draw upon an existing example of a vibrant minority that lives within the grander society but still retains a distinct culture and distinct identity.

The gay community has dealt with a tragic history of oppression and discrimination. Although homosexuality was widely practiced in many parts of the world (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, the pre-Columbian Americas, pre-colonial Africa, Ancient East Asia), the infusion of Christianity into the Roman Empire ultimately made both entities more authoritarian. This was particularly so with a form of cultural genocide that sought to eradicate homosexual activity in all areas. After the fall of Rome, subsequent conservative Christian emperors sought to use the authority of the church to push their own agenda of social control. Incredible amounts of oppression against homosexual activity occurred in the name of the Father.

Meanwhile, the civilizations of East Asia, the pre-Columbian Americas, and sub-Saharan Africa all maintained cultures that ran the gamut from an attitude of permissiveness to outright reverence of homosexuality.

It has only in recent times come to pass that the “genderqueer” community (for lack of a better term) has gained a place in society.

Thus, the workings of the gay community today serve as a positive example of cultural autonomy. They have their own bars and clubs, festivals, and advocacy groups, all within which straight people are more than welcome to participate. They have a distinct way of life from straight folk, but nonetheless live and work all around us.

Granted, to apply cultural autonomy to different communities may be met with varying degrees of difficulty, particularly when the community occurs in a concentrated geographical location. But when the question arises as to how cultural autonomy can solve the problems of the black, Hispanic, Native, immigrant, Francophone, etc. communities, the gay community can continually serve as a beacon.

The Gray Panthers: South Park’s Biggest Fear, by Rick Gunderman

Have you seen that one episode of South Park, “Grey Dawn, Episode 710″? It’s the one where a lot of old people are getting into car accidents, so the town takes away all of their licenses, and then the American Association of Retired Persons (now simply AARP) launches a military invasion of the town. It was supposed to be a spoof of the 1984 movie “Red Dawn”.

The AARP in real life is not a militant group. They are a seniors’ advocacy group that works primarily through litigation and lobbying and provides special non-profit services to its members.

If Trey Parker and Matt Stone had done a little more research, they may have found a perfect target for their satire: the Gray Panthers.

In case the name doesn’t say it all, the Gray Panthers are retirees’ answer to Huey P. Newton. I couldn’t freaking believe it when I came across it. I mean, who ever heard of militant seniors, particularly when their founder was quoted suggesting that since women often outlive men by eight years on average, elderly widows should look to each other for sexual pleasure.

Notwithstanding the personally unpleasant mental picture drawn by such a statement, I applaud the Gray Panthers. While the AARP is a decent enough organization, it’s good to see that the spirit of resistance is not lost in the older generations.

Furthermore, my pleasure with the Gray Panthers comes from (and for those who have read Unite the Activist Front, this will come as no surprise) the fact that they adamantly believe that all social justice movements are inseparably linked. As such, they affirm their solidarity with movements in support of youth, ethnic, racial and cultural minorities, peace, LGBT liberation, civil liberties, the poor and the working class.

Granted, some of their statements may seem outrageous and controversial to the general public, but what good is free expression without using it to search for new ideas? Old lesbians may not do it for most people, but if it makes them happy, what’s the harm? Which does go to highlight the question: shouldn’t we all be free to explore our sexuality at our own pleasure?

In conclusion, I salute the courage, attitudes, values, vision and assertiveness of the Gray Panthers. May they continue to valiantly defy ageism, and may we all stand by their side! You can visit their site at http://www.graypanthers.org/

Cultural Autonomy and Separatism, by Rick Gunderman

A long-standing trend in the anti-racist far-left is to advocate for the “cultural autonomy” of minorities. That is to say, each cultural group has the inalienable right to express their way of life as they see fit.

Personal issues that I have had with this particular philosophy revolve around a reservation I have for the idea of separatism. I abhor the idea of allowing any sort of divisions to manifest into a sociological or geographical apartheid. It is my conviction, backed up by scientific evidence, that ethnicity and race in particular are virtually negligible genetic factors in an individual’s personality.

Thus, the meaning of cultural autonomy must be made mutually exclusive with any form of separatism.

Cultural autonomy means the right to express one’s culture with other members of that culture. Complications arise in geographical regions wherein there co-exist many cultures, a case-in-point of which could be Anglo-Franco North America.

It is a part of the world where cultures converge. Although dominated by Anglo-European culture in the United States and English Canada and Franco-European culture in French Canada (and parts of Louisiana and New England), it is common to find a Chinatown, Little Italy, Greektown and Little India in many cities, not to mention enclaves of African-American, Jewish, German, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish/Hispanic, Japanese, Korean, Middle Eastern and Native American culture.

To offer cultural autonomy is easiest when a definable geographic region belongs almost or completely homogeneously to a distinct cultural group. I often use the Frisians of northeastern Germany and northern Netherlands to illustrate this. It is conceivable that the remaining Frisians could call for autonomy within the German and Dutch states, or outright independence, as long as their national self-determination were respected by the German and Dutch states. The same could be said for the Tatars, Chechens, Ossetians and Bashkirs of Russia; the Basques and Catalans of Spain and France; the Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Manx of the United Kingdom; and any of the 56 distinct ethnic groups recognized by the People’s Republic of China.

However, the situation in North America is a textbook example of the difficulties of universal cultural autonomy in that, often, the cultural groups all live within the same geographical boundary. Major North American cities like Toronto, New York City, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Miami and San Francisco all fit into this phenomenon.

The contention regarding cultural autonomy is not based on whether all cultures have an inalienable right to express their cultures independent of another: they do. The question regards how best to implement it in all situations so that a global condition of universal cultural autonomy emerges.

To suggest that the division of all cultures into distinct nation-states is the best solution is simply ridiculous. Examples, primarily in Europe, show that it is both impossible and impractical. It is impossible because nation-states necessarily require territorial boundaries, almost never of which correspond 100% with a homogeneous nation, trapping nationals outside of the boundaries and non-nationals inside them. It is impractical because the nation-state is an inherently nationalist institution, causing arbitrary national divisions by uniting dissimilar communities against often similar communities.

Without the nation-state, a new social order must emerge that allows for cultural autonomy but also undermines separatism.

Take, for example, African-Americans in the United States. Historically an oppressed minority, they have yet to break free from the bonds of the damage of slavery, institutional discrimination, and contemporary racism. Calls for black nationalism have met with varying degrees of success.

The solution cannot be nationalism. There can be no creation of a distinct, independent nation-state for African-Americans. This is so for two reasons: one, African-Americans are not completely geographically concentrated, forming enclaves in cities and towns, meaning that no African-American nation-state would have continuous boundaries; two, while forming enclaves across the country, African-Americans also live in communities that are dominantly European-American or Hispanic-American, while non-Africans also live in their communities.

Nevertheless, African-Americans have formed a distinct culture, characterized by such things as jazz, hip-hop, rap, some distinctive cuisine, a unique form of comedy and entertainment, artistic and poetic styles, and even a dialect of American English (commonly known as “Ebonics”).

To allow African-Americans, and all other cultural minorities, to fully express their culture is absolutely necessary for the full development of each individual African-American’s identity.

The first step in doing so is to immediately remove all legal barriers to this. This includes clamping down on racial profiling, leveling out laws that unfairly single out African-Americans*, retrying black prisoners when there is evidence of a breach of justice, etc.

Once the minority in question has achieved absolute equality under the law, they must use their organizational power to create a visible presence for themselves in society, using this presence to normalize relations between their community and all others. They must actively seek to educate members of other communities and cultures about their way of life, for it is ignorance that leads to hate.

The most important manifestation of cultural autonomy must be a political structure that allows for culture-related issues to be decided by members of that culture. This does not entail political sovereignty: that would be separatism. It is the right of a cultural community, like any other community, to decide their direction without interference.

Simply, cultural autonomy is the right of all cultures to flourish by their own means while co-existing peacefully with other cultures with stipulations based on human and civil rights.

* An example of this is laws regarding cocaine and crack cocaine. An ACLU report documents that “distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while for powder cocaine, distribution of 500 grams – 100 times the amount of crack cocaine – carries the same sentence.” For more, see http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/11/15/crack-cocaine-sentencing-systematic-racism-at-work/

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy: Unapologetically Against the War on Drugs, by Rick Gunderman

What would Abraham Lincoln say?

“Prohibition makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded,” read the back of a t-shirt distributed by Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).

The SSDP is, as the name suggests, dedicated to eradicating the War on Drugs. They believe that although drugs are harmful, the best method to reducing the risk of drug addiction is to educate and not prosecute. They compare the use of drugs to sex: during sex, we use condoms because it’s the safe thing to do. We must treat drugs the same way: if you must use them, accept the dangers and commence at your own discretion.

Unapologetically against the War on Drugs, the SSDP says that they “neither encourage or condemn drug use.” Rather, they seek to reduce the harm caused by drug use and drug policies. The SSDP makes it clear that they believe that current drug policy is counterproductive and they make use of examples from college and university campuses across North America to illustrate their point.

For example, students who are caught with drugs at a university are often expelled, which the SSDP argues dooms them to fall short of their potential and likely turn to the drugs which got them kicked out of the university in the first place.

Another example is the presence of the university in the dorm room tenants’ lives. The SSDP believes that a university should have no more authority over what a dorm resident does in his or her room than a landlord would in an apartment building. Some universities actually invade the privacy of their students and search the rooms for drugs, often solely on a rumour. How would the administrators like it, the SSDP asks, if students went rifling through their desk drawers and private possessions?

The War on Drugs has been a controversial talking point in Canada ever since it entered our mainstream political consciousness. Proponents say that it is the only way to “keep our kids safe” from drugs and help them live healthy, safe lives. Opponents argue that fighting drugs using strict laws and harsh penalties does nothing to deter those who are likely to use drugs in the first place, and such principles are authoritarian in nature.

Whatever the viewpoint, it is a fact that the War on Drugs is largely imported from our neighbour to the south. Following the death of the remnants of a hippie culture with any presence and the emergence of punk culture, the War was declared as a reaction to these two sub-cultures’ notorious use of drugs. The parents of the ’80s (i.e. the teens of the ’60s) began a campaign to demand more cops on the beat and harsher legal punishments for using drugs.

The trouble with this is that it did not take into account that, after drugs became less mainstream, it was the poor who wound up retaining their liking for this magic happiness. Drugs became a symbol for poverty, and by extension “welfare deadbeats”. If they weren’t locked up in jail for peddling pot, they’d just be sapping money from Social Security, say the reactionaries.

Of course, not all drug users are poor. There are many who turn to drugs and alcohol for recreation and not escapism. A popular theory, one of which I strongly advocate, is that boredom is a large factor in this. Many argue that teens today have better access to movies, television, sports, and other forms of entertainment, and it is insensible to suggest that boredom is a cause for drug use. Au contraire: it makes perfect sense.

With the cost of living rising combined with standard inflation, parents are away from home much more often than they used to be, and this is true for middle class families as much as working class families.

When women (rightfully) won the right to work for equal pay there was something that we as a society failed to account for with our newfound acquisition of justice: the void that many kids would find once both parents were out working. Instead of setting up entertaining and effective after-school programs (or anything to keep them occupied), we bred the infamous “latch-key” kids of the ’80s and ‘90, who would search for less constructive means to occupy themselves.

The reasons why people do drugs are plentiful, as are the solutions to the epidemic. A strong economy with job security, well-equipped public schools, enjoyable activities for all kids and youth, and a comprehensive social safety net are all tried, tested and true methods of fighting drugs without a War. They are also, sadely, beyond the comprehension of the authoritarian elements of society.

Honest Abe was so-named for a reason. He had a knack for speaking his mind, a reputation for truthfulness, and a legacy that is championed by both parties and honoured by the people of the United States of America and beyond.

If you’re not one who cares for the advice of a 19th Century American political icon, take it from Tupac Shakur: “Instead of war on poverty, they got a War on Drugs so the police can bother me.”

Why Whites Think Blacks Have No Problems, by Tim Wise (AlterNet)

Seven out of ten whites think that blacks face no inequalities. Yet 50 percent of blacks say they have been discriminated against in the past month. How can whites be so blind?

Just a few years ago, a public opinion poll indicated that only 6 percent of whites in the U.S. believed racism was still a “very serious” problem facing African Americans. While larger percentages believed racism to be somewhat of a problem, only this anemic share of the white community saw it as an issue of great importance.

When you consider that twice that number — or as many as 12 percent — have told pollsters they believe Elvis Presley is still alive, it becomes apparent that delusion has taken on a whole new meaning among the dominant racial majority. Apparently, it is easier for whites to believe that a pill-popping, washed-up lounge singer faked his own death and is playing midnight gigs at some tropical resort, than to believe what black folks say they experience every day.

It makes me think that if ignorance is indeed bliss, then my fellow whites must be among the happiest folks on the planet.

So it was no surprise to read that once again a poll has been released, indicating that whites by and large don’t think racial discrimination remains a big problem, and that whites and blacks continue to view issues of racial equality far differently.

According to the recent Gallup Survey on “Black-White Relations,” seven out of ten whites believe that blacks are treated equally in their communities: an optimism with which only 40 percent of blacks agree. Eight in ten whites say blacks receive equal educational opportunities, and 83 percent say blacks receive equal housing opportunities in their communities. Only a third of whites believe blacks face racial bias from police in their areas.

Despite the fact that half of all blacks say they have experienced discrimination in the past 30 days, whites persist in believing that we know their realities better than they do, and that black complaints of racism are the rantings of oversensitive racial hypochondriacs. Blacks, we seem to believe, make mountains out of molehills, for Lord knows we would never make a molehill out of a mountain!

That white perceptions of the extent of racial bias are rooted in a stupendous miasma of ignorance is made clear by a number of salient facts. First, as will be shown below, there is the statistical evidence indicating that equal opportunity is the stuff of fiction, not documentary; and secondly, the simple truth that white perceptions of racism’s salience have always been splendidly naive. Indeed, as far back as 1963, before there was a Civil Rights Act to outlaw even the most blatant racial discrimination, 60 percent of whites said that blacks were treated equally in their communities. In 1962, only 8 years after the Brown decision outlawed segregation in the nation’s schools (but well before schools had actually moved to integrate their classrooms), a stunning 84 percent of whites were convinced that blacks had equal educational opportunity. In other words, white denial of the racism problem is nothing new: it was firmly entrenched even when this nation operated under a formal system of apartheid.

Of course, this ignorance of the lived realities of black people is no surprise. Rather it is in large part the result of our isolation from African Americans in daily life.

More than 80 percent of whites live in virtually all-white neighborhoods, and nearly nine in ten white suburbanites live in communities with less than 1 percent black populations. What’s more, only 12 percent of whites in law school today — who by historical standards have had more opportunity to mix with people of color than any generation before them — say they had significant interaction with blacks while growing up.

One can only expect this degree of isolation to lead to a skewed perception of what other people experience. After all, if one doesn’t know many blacks, or personally witness discrimination, it is all the more likely that one will find the notion of widespread mistreatment hard to digest. Especially when one has been socialized to give more credence to what members of one’s own group say, than what the racial “other” tells us is true.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that every time a black person says they have been discriminated against that they are, in fact, correct. Individuals, after all, can misperceive certain situations. But the reality of individual misperception should not lead to the widespread white belief in mass black delusion, which is virtually the only way one can read the Gallup figures.

For so many whites to believe that blacks have equal opportunity, is not only to discount a few claims of discrimination that may be without merit: rather, it is to reject the broad swath of claims that virtually every African American can bring forth from their personal mental rolodex. Fact is, if even one-tenth of the black claims of discrimination were accurate, this would translate into well over 1.75 million instances of anti-black racial bias every single month, based on survey data. Unfortunately, it is doubtful the numbers are this small.

Though the Gallup survey didn’t address racial discrimination in the labor market, there is little question that when whites say blacks are treated equally, they are also assuming this to be true for the world of work. But what is the reality? According to a recent study by the Russell Sage Foundation, even though blacks search for work longer and often more aggressively than whites, they are between 36-44 percent less likely to be hired for jobs in mostly white suburbs, even when their experience and qualifications are equal to their white counterparts. White males with a high school diploma are just as likely to have a job, and tend to earn just as much as black males with college degrees, and on average, even when age, experience, education and other relevant factors are considered, blacks average at least 10 percent less pay than similar whites.

As for education, the picture is much the same. Although formal segregation is illegal, de facto segregation remains a reality thanks to “ability tracking,” which has less to do with actual ability, and more to do with racial and class bias against children of color and those from low-income families. Beginning as early as kindergarten, teachers and counselors separate students based on so-called cognitive skill levels, despite evidence that the tests used to determine these skill levels are inaccurate predictors of ability and terribly biased against students from non-dominant cultural backgrounds.

Even when black students show potential that is equal to or above that of whites, they are 40 percent less likely to be placed in advanced or accelerated classes, according to the head of the College Board. Despite evidence of ability, blacks are 2.5 times more likely to be placed in remedial or low-track classes, where they will typically be taught by the least qualified teachers, be given less challenging material to learn, and receive on average nearly 40 hours less actual instruction annually.

So too is educational inequity fostered by unequal discipline, meted out in a racially disparate manner. Even though black and white rates of school rule infractions are roughly equal, black students are twice as likely as whites to be suspended or expelled. Blacks are half of all students suspended or expelled for weapons violations, even though self-report surveys indicate whites are just as likely to bring weapons to school, and white males are actually twice as likely as black males to do so. Since blacks are more likely to be suspected — thanks to common stereotypes about violence and delinquency — they are the ones who get searched and caught, but this hardly means they break the rules more often.

According to studies by the Applied Research Center, the disproportionate rate of black suspensions is the result of greater punishment given for subjective infractions like “defying authority,” or “attitude problems,” both of which are perceived as more threatening when coming from black students than whites.

As for housing, white confidence in equal opportunity makes for nice wishful thinking, but hardly comports with reality. Virtually every study on housing bias in rental and mortgage markets for the past three decades has found evidence of substantial ongoing discrimination. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there may be as many as 2 million instances of racial housing bias each year, and as many as half of all blacks may face discrimination when trying to rent an apartment or purchase a home.

According to the Boston Federal Reserve Bank, blacks are 56 percent more likely than whites to be rejected for a mortgage loan, even after controlling for 38 factors that could explain higher rejection rates for blacks — including issues of credit history, collateral, and income. Nationwide, mortgage loan rejection rates for the highest income group of blacks is roughly the same as the rejection rates for the lowest income whites.

Finally, white protestations that blacks receive equal treatment from police in their communities, is nothing short of laughable. A look at police prosecution of the war on drugs alone gives the lie to white claims of equal law enforcement. Though blacks are only 14 percent of illegal drug users, they are 35 percent of those arrested for possession. In many communities, including some of the ones where whites claim there is no bias in policing, blacks face arrest rates for drugs that are five, ten, even twenty times higher than the rates for whites, despite roughly equal rates of drug usage.

Though a slim majority of whites admit that racial profiling — one clear example of unequal treatment — does happen, apparently few believe it happens where they live. Yet in state after state, studies have found a disproportionate rate of highway and surface street stops of vehicles driven by blacks, and searches of cars driven by blacks, above and beyond the rates of black traffic infractions, which otherwise might create reasonable cause.

In New York City, from 1997-1998, the NYPD’s Street Crimes Unit stopped and frisked 135,000 people: 85 percent of whom were people of color. Only 4500 persons were ultimately arrested and prosecuted, meaning that over 95 percent of those harassed were innocent. Interestingly, whites who were stopped were significantly more likely to be found with drugs or other contraband, indicating that not only was this policy of racial stops and searches a biased one, but it failed the test as valid crime control on its own merits as well.

Of course, I hardly expect the facts to matter much, as an awful lot of white folks seem impervious to them. When it comes to racial realities, the levels of ignorance are so ingrained as to be almost laughable. Perhaps that’s why 12 percent of whites actually say blacks are a majority of the nation’s population, and why most whites believe blacks are a third of the nation’s population, instead of the thirteen percent they actually represent. We seem to see black people everywhere, and apparently we see them doing quite well.

Apparently, we even see them as our buddies. 75 percent of whites in one recent poll indicated that they had multiple close black friends. Sounds great, until you realize that 75 percent of white Americans represents about 145 million people. 145 million who say they have multiple black friends, despite the fact that there are only 35 million black people to go around.

Which means one of two things: either whites are clueless about black people, friendships, or both; or black folks are mighty damned busy, running from white house to white house to white house, being our friends. In which case, we can put away all that nonsense about blacks “taking our jobs.” After all, how could blacks have time to work at all, what with all the backyard barbecues they’re attending at the houses of their white pals? Hell, maybe Elvis will even invite them all to Graceland when he makes his triumphant return to Memphis.

The Fetus Focus Fallacy, by Joyce Arthur

Like never before, abortion rights are under threat today in the United States. A concerted 30-year campaign by the anti-choice movement has chipped away at a woman’s right to control her life, and tried to turn the tables by focusing attention on the fetus. It looks like it’s finally succeeded. In the aftermath of Bush’s re-election victory in November 2004, Democrats started backing away from their commitment to abortion rights, and pro-choice leaders started talking about the need to recognize and respect the moral value of the fetus.[1] Do we really want to travel down this dangerous road?

American women are drowning in a sea of state and federal laws restricting abortion. Some of these laws recognize fetuses as persons deserving of protection, such as a new federal law that makes fetuses a separate victim when a pregnant woman is assaulted, and many state laws that criminalize pregnant women for engaging in behaviors that might harm their fetus. Although these laws specifically exempt legal abortion, that’s a meaningless sop to the war-weary pro-choice movement, which allowed most of these laws to pass without a fight. Because if the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion is overturned, as many predict, women can probably look forward to being prosecuted, jailed, and even executed for “murdering” their fetuses - something that could never have happened in the bad old days of illegal abortion when fetuses were still invisible to the eyes of the law.

Anti-choicers insist that the key question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a person or not. If so, abortion is murder, they say, and therefore obviously immoral and illegal. That is not the key question at all, of course - anti-choicers are committing the “fetus focus fallacy.” The practice of abortion is unrelated to the status of the fetus - it hinges totally on the aspirations and needs of women. Women have abortions regardless of the law, regardless of the risk to their lives or health, regardless of the morality of abortion, and regardless of what the fetus may or may not be. On average, abortion rates do not differ substantially between countries where it’s legal and countries where it’s illegal.[2] Which reveals a more pertinent question: Do we provide women with safe legal abortions, or do we let them suffer and die from dangerous illegal abortions?

Some anti-choicers argue that even though women will have abortions regardless, that doesn’t mean we should make abortion legal, since we don’t legalize murder just because some people will commit murder anyway. This analogy fails because everyone in society agrees that murder is wrong and must be punished, but there is no such consensus on abortion. Second, very few people commit murder, but a majority of women will either have an abortion, or would have one if they experienced an unwanted pregnancy. As we learned from Prohibition (of alcohol), criminalizing behavior that large numbers of people engage in has disastrous consequences for public health and law and order.

The real key question behind the legality of abortion is: How much do we value women’s rights and lives? Because focusing on the fetus always has dire legal and social consequences for women. It’s also insulting to women because it usurps their moral decision-making, as well as their bodies and wombs. The best way by far to protect fetuses and children is to help pregnant women and mothers. When women have the necessary support and resources to raise kids, we can trust them to be good mothers. If women have liberty and equality, their mothering will also be willing, happy, and confident, which further benefits children. But as soon as we bestow special rights on fetuses, we separate them from their mothers and create an adversarial relationship that hurts both. For example, pregnant drug abusers tend to forego prenatal care entirely rather than risk arrest and prosecution. By protecting the interests of fetuses, we sacrifice women’s rights and autonomy, and end up harming their children in the long run. Furthermore, it’s logically impossible for two beings occupying the same body to exercise two competing sets of rights - one or the other has to go.

To shed more light on why it’s wrong and inappropriate to focus on the fetus, let’s examine several aspects about abortion. I’m going to clarify some misleading anti-choice language around the fetus, weigh the claims that a fetus is a person and has a right to life, and consider a woman’s ethical reasoning behind an abortion decision. Thinking about these issues will help us understand that assigning moral value to fetuses steals away a woman’s sacred right to resolve this question for herself, and her right to decide how much it will factor into her private decision to have an abortion or a baby.

Is a Fetus a Person? (and a Human Being?)

Anti-choicers say not only that a fetus is a person and a full human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of “begging the question.”

Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a person or human being, at least not before “quickening”, an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church generally disliked abortion because it represented illicit sex, not because it killed a fetus. The church did not make abortion an excommunicable crime until 1869.[3] Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses.[4] Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor.[5] The anti-choice view of fetuses as persons is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.

Another major fallacy perpetrated by the anti-choice is their interchangeable use of the word “person” with the terms “human”, “humanity” or “human being”. These terms are not synonymous. For example, anti-choicers often confuse the adjective “human” and the noun “human being,” giving them the same meaning. I’m struck by the question they often pose to pro-choicers: “But isn’t it human?” - as if we think a fetus is really a creature from outer space. If you point out that a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA, anti-choicers triumphantly claim you just conceded it’s a human being. Now, a flake of dandruff from my head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense, neither is a fertilized egg. Anti-choicers will respond that a fertilized egg is not like dandruff, because the egg consists of a unique set of chromosomes that makes it a distinct human being. But with cloning, a cell from my dandruff is enough to create a new human being. Although it would have my identical genetic make-up, it would still be a unique individual, because human beings are much more than our genes. Also, both a fertilized egg and a cloned cell represent a potential, not an actual human being. It’s a worn cliché, but it bears repeating - an acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. So the only objective scientific fact we have is that fertilized eggs are human (the adjective) - not that they are human beings (the noun).

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman’s body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn’t just depend on a woman’s body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Persons, by definition, must be separate individuals who operate independently of others. They do not gain the status of persons by virtue of living inside the body of another person - the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities). Early embryonic forms do not share basic commonalities that define us as human beings. For example, zygotes and blastocysts are barely visible to the naked eye and have no bodies, brains, skeleton, or internal organs. Fetuses cannot breathe or make sounds, and they cannot see or be seen (except by shadowy ultrasound). They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings. Further, fetuses are not just miniature babies. At various stages, fetuses have eyes on stalks, notochords (instead of spines), fish-like gills, tails, downy fur, distorted torsos, spindly legs, giant heads, and alien-looking faces. In fact, an early human fetus is practically indistinguishable in appearance from a dog or pig fetus. Finally, the fetal brain is not yet capable of conscious thought and memory (which aren’t fully actualized until two or three years after birth). But our complex brains are what set us apart from animals and define us as human beings. The brain is the seat of personhood.[6]

Anti-choicers also use the phrase “humanity of the fetus,” by which they may mean its biological human qualities, but it’s ambiguous, and purposely so. The word “humanity” implies compassionate human emotions and virtues, such as pathos, love, or kindness. The term is cleverly designed to elicit sympathy for a fetus, and assign it human-like qualities it simply does not have. The ability to feel joy, sadness, anger, and hatred are an integral part of our personhood, and we do not learn to develop such sophisticated emotions until we start socially interacting with others.

Besides the capacity to experience emotions, we generally think of personhood as possessing the qualities of intelligence, self-awareness, and moral responsibility.[7] Fetuses do not share these characteristics. On a more practical level however, the term “person” is really a legal and social construction. Persons enjoy legal rights and constitutional freedoms, such as the right to assemble, travel, protest, speak, and believe as they wish. Persons have birth certificates and social security numbers. Persons earn income, pay taxes, and vote, or they are registered dependents of those that do. Under this definition, it is an indisputable fact that fetuses are not persons. They are literally incapable of exercising legal personhood in any meaningful way. Although you could call a fetus a “potential person,” a potential person cannot have personhood rights either, in the same way that a 6-year old cannot obtain a driver’s license just because he’s a potential 16-year old. Potential persons have only potential rights, not actual rights.

So even though a fetus is biologically human, it’s definitely not a person (legally and socially), and it’s questionable whether it’s a human being (physically). Although we usually consider persons to be human beings as well, that’s not necessarily always the case. We could argue that intelligent animals like chimpanzees share some qualities of personhood with us, while a few human beings do not qualify as persons, such as brain-dead individuals.[8]Likewise, we could argue that fetuses are not human beings by virtue of their non-personhood and because they have unique physical qualities different from any born human being.

However, there is a wide divergence of opinion on the degree of “human beingness” of the fetus, and more pertinently - what its moral value should be. Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on that issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim. That’s why we should give the benefit of the doubt to women and let them decide - because women are indisputable human beings and persons with rights.

Does a Fetus Have a Right to Life?

Although fetuses cannot enjoy legal personhood, anti-choicers argue that fetuses do have a right to life that outweighs the right of the woman to control her fertility and her life. But many anti-choicers support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, a threat to the woman’s life, or even health. This clearly indicates that they believe the right to life of a fetus is negotiable, certainly not absolute or paramount. By compromising their “right to life” definition in order to accommodate a woman’s rights, they inadvertently acknowledge that women’s rights are more important than the right to life of fetuses.

Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone’s life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will.[9] In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy.[10] This argument is sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behavior. Moreover, sex is not a contract for pregnancy - people have a constitutional right to non-procreative sex because of legalized birth control, which implicitly provides the right to have sex without reproducing.[11] Most abortions are caused by failed contraception anyway, but regardless, consent to sex does not entail consent to pregnancy, any more than consent to swimming implies consent to drown.

A fetus’ supposed right to life wouldn’t automatically overrule a woman’s right to choose anyway, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one’s moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman - it is not a mere “inconvenience” - her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term.

If fetuses did have a right to live, one could make an equal case for the right of unwanted fetuses not to live. This is alien to the anti-choice assumption that all life is precious and should be encouraged and preserved at any cost. In the real world, however, some people commit suicide because they no longer want to live, and others wish they’d never been born. Life is not a picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk for leading dysfunctional lives.[12]Many people believe that being forced to live is a violation of human dignity and conscience. To be truly meaningful, the right to live must include the flip side, the right to die.

Ultimately though, to have a “right to life” requires that one be an individual capable of living an independent existence. One must “get a life” before one has a “right to life.” A fetus is not a separate individual - it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth. In fact, the biological definition of “parasite” fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman’s body, just like a parasite does to its host. I’m not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[13] - if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. Fetal dependence on a woman’s body also refutes the common anti-choice assertion that fetuses are “innocent” and therefore deserving of protection. An unwanted fetus has no ill intent of course - like a parasite, it’s just doing what it naturally has to do - but the physical risks of pregnancy and its total disruption to a woman’s body and life means the fetus is not harmless, and therefore not innocent. This gives the woman the right to defend herself via an abortion.

The Ethical Abortion Decision

Can a woman’s decision to have an abortion be ethically justified even if we decided that the fetus is a human being with moral claims on us? Because if so, the moral status of the fetus would become even more peripheral to the abortion debate.

What goes through a typical woman’s mind when she finds herself accidentally and unhappily pregnant? Why does she choose abortion? The common denominator is how a woman personally feels about becoming a mother at that time in her life, and whether she can deal with it or not. A 1998 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute examined the reasons why women have abortions.[14] About half of all women said their main reason was to postpone or stop childbearing. What women actually say to justify this are things like: “I just can’t have another baby right now.” or “I’m not ready to be a mother.” or “I already have three kids.”

In the U.S., 61% of women having abortions already have at least one child. Globally, a large majority of women who have abortions are married with children. These women are concerned with being able to provide for themselves and their existing family. Having a new mouth to feed can be a great hardship that can hurt the whole family. Women who decide to abort are making a moral decision that is also practical. They are deciding on the basis of what they know is in the best interests of themselves and their families. Women love their children. If they know they won’t be able to care for another child, they’re not helping anyone by bringing it into difficult circumstances. Anti-choicers often label women who have abortions as “selfish.” Let’s never forget that women are still the primary caretakers of children in our society. Women know they’re the ones who are going to have to do it. If they aren’t even in a position to take care of themselves, or the children they already have, is it fair to expect them to make things even worse for everyone involved? In fact, having an abortion can be one of the most unselfish acts a woman can perform.

What about adoption? - the catch-all solution according to anti-choicers. First, it’s virtually impossible for a married woman or any woman with children, to give up a baby for adoption. So out of all women having abortions, we’re talking about a minority of women, the single childless women, who might be in a position to give up their babies for adoption. But overall, less than five percent of women actually do so. Why? A counselor at an abortion clinic told me that when adoption is mentioned as an option, a typical reaction from many women goes something like this: “Are you kidding!? Give my baby to some stranger? I could never do that!” What these women are feeling is instinctual - it’s a combination of self-preservation, and a maternal obligation to the child. Giving up a child for adoption is very traumatic; it can haunt a woman forever. This relates to women’s strong need to control what happens to their children. The fetus is theirs. It’s in their body. And they feel obligated to it. They have a gut feeling that it’s irresponsible to give your children to strangers - good mothers simply don’t do such things. Most women feel that it’s better to prevent the birth of a child than consign it to an uncertain fate.

When a single childless woman has an abortion, she often does it so she can better provide for future children later in her life. Although single motherhood is common and more accepted these days, it’s still very difficult to raise kids by yourself. It’s hard on mothers and it’s hard on kids. Single mothers tend to be poorer, and have fewer resources and supports. And almost everyone would agree that kids benefit from having another parent around.

Most women give more than one reason for their abortion. There’s usually other problems in the woman’s life that play a role. In fact, the second most common reason for having an abortion, according to the Alan Guttmacher study, is socio-economic concerns. This includes things like poverty, inability to afford additional children, unemployment, no father, relationship problems with the father, or disruption of her education or employment.

A problem with the father is a really common reason, next to having no money. When a woman gets pregnant, she knows she’s going to be tied to the father of that child for the rest of her life. If that man is abusive, or dysfunctional, or maybe she just doesn’t love him, why should she make him a permanent part of her life and her child’s life? Many women feel that it’s better to sever all ties with that man now, by preventing the birth of his child.

What do all these socio-economic reasons have in common? They are all practical reasons, based on the day-to-day stark reality of women’s lives. But they’re also moral and compassionate reasons. They indicate a woman’s overriding concern that her baby should have the best chance for a good life. Not a life with no father, or a bad father, or a life of poverty and collecting welfare.

So all in all, a woman’s reasons for having an abortion are ethical. The decision to have an abortion is taken seriously and well-thought out. It’s based on her own life circumstances and abilities; the welfare of her family; her future plans, hopes and dreams; and her determination to make a good life happen, both for herself and her loved ones. For many women, the decision to have an abortion is empowering, because it allows them the freedom to take control of their lives and their destiny, and protect and improve the lives of themselves and their families. Legal abortion liberates women, because women can only achieve equality with men if they have the ability to control their fertility.

Such things are truly ethical consequences of the right to choose abortion. Since it’s also a decision that takes into account the best interests of the fetus, we can be confident that women recognize the value of their fetuses and act accordingly.

The Moral Value of the Fetus - Who Decides?

Notice that the above discussion acknowledges the moral value of fetuses from the point of view of the pregnant woman. All pregnant women know that their fetus will soon become a baby if they let the pregnancy continue. In fact, it’s quite likely that most pregnant woman - those with wanted pregnancies - already believe it’s a baby. A happily pregnant woman probably feels love for her fetus as a special and unique human being, a welcome and highly anticipated member of her family. She names her fetus, refers to it as a baby, talks to it, and so on. On the other hand, an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay. She cannot bring herself to refer to it as anything other than “it,” much less a human being. She is desperate to get rid of this unwelcome invader, and when she does, she feels tremendous relief. Both of these reactions to a fetus, and all reactions in between, are perfectly valid and natural. Both may even occur in the same woman, years apart. Because both spring from the same ethical source - the biological imperative to be a good mother, at the right time, in the best circumstances possible.

Abortion is an extremely personal decision. It’s difficult for anyone to understand how it feels to be host to an unwelcome pregnancy, until it happens to them. When Canada’s Supreme Court threw out the country’s abortion law, one of the female judges said: “It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma, not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience…but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma.”[15] An abortion provider from Kansas put it more poetically: “Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all.”

Perhaps an effective way to convey this is to explain how I felt about my own abortion 15 years ago, obtained under Canada’s old discriminatory system of therapeutic hospital abortion committees. The thing that enraged me then, and still does today, is this single overriding thought: How dare they. How dare anyone tell me what I can do with my body, my life. How dare anyone tell me I should submit to their preconceived ideas of how a woman should think and feel, decide and act, live and breathe. How dare they. My life is no-one else’s to lead, no-one else’s to make stereotyped judgments upon, no-one else’s to paternalistically manage. If I want advice and support from others over difficult life decisions, I’ll seek it on my own and take what I need from it. Ultimately, I am the final arbiter when it comes to my life. And my decision-making ability includes deciding the fate of my embryo or fetus. Since it lives inside my body and is completely dependent on me and no-one else for its survival, it literally belongs to me and no-one else. I’m solely responsible for it. It has no independent rights because it has no independent existence. This is not selfishness or a lack of caring for my fetus - quite the opposite. It represents maturity and respect, based on a gut-level belief that I shouldn’t inflict myself on a child who deserves better.

Anti-choicers claim that nobody’s looking out for fetuses except them. They ignore the fact that only pregnant woman are qualified to make decisions on behalf of their fetuses. Not only can we trust women to make the best decision - whether it’s to give birth or have an abortion - but we must allow women to make mistakes they might regret, too. With rights come responsibilities. In the end, a woman’s decision about what to do with her fetus is nobody’s business but hers. Any unwanted interference with her decision is not only immoral, it’s an outrage and an insult, because it says a woman can’t be trusted to make responsible decisions about her own life. It reduces her to the status of a child or a piece of chattel. That’s why the abortion issue should have no place in politics or law. It’s a private health decision that women make based on their personal ethics and life circumstances, not a political football to be kicked around at election time. Women’s lives and rights should never be up for debate in legislatures and editorial pages.

We all have our own opinions about what the moral status of the fetus might be. Some people believe a fertilized egg is a full human being with an absolute right to life that supercedes any right of the woman. Others believe that a fetus attains moral value only after it becomes viable, or upon birth. But that’s all these beliefs are - opinions. There’s no way to decide between them, because they’re entirely subjective and emotional. Therefore, the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. The status of her fetus and any moral value accorded to it is entirely her call. A fetus becomes a human being when the woman carrying it decides it does.

Pro-choice leaders and activists are wrong to encourage debate on the status of the fetus. They are wrong to publicly speculate on its moral value. Their opinion about the fetus is just as irrelevant and just as dangerous as the opinion of the most fanatical anti-choicer. Because when we inject our opinions about the fetus into the public square, it just shows our lack of respect and trust for the moral authority of pregnant women. We insult their dignity, invade their privacy, and trample on their personal relationship with their fetus.

Let’s not fall into the fetus focus fallacy. The abortion debate is about ensuring fundamental human rights for women - their right to life, good health, education, economic justice, autonomy, privacy, and equality - in short, women’s right to control their own lives and destiny on a par with men. Because with those rights in hand, women have everything they need to protect and care for their fetuses and children themselves, in the best way possible.

Sexuality and Feminism, by Rick Gunderman

The familiarity of the public with feminism has changed over the ages, beginning with a simple campaign to extend the vote to women. Courageous social warriors like Nellie McClung, Kate Sheppard and Susan B. Anthony took up the fight for this right as the first battle in the war to free women from social, political and later economic bonds.

The goal was gleefully met and by the end of the Second World War most developed countries had extended the franchise to all adult women.

The second phase of the battle was yet to begin, and it would take off in an unexpected way thanks to the advent of reproductive science and a major counterculture movement.

Come the 1960s, the battle for women’s rights had left veteran feminists tired and ready to pass the torch onto the new generation. That new generation had been raised on an unprecedented parenting technique known as “permissiveness”, which essentially meant that the children should be allowed to develop in their own personal ways with as few restrictions, and only reasonable ones at that, on their behaviour.

While young girls grew up in a world of never-before-seen liberty, there was still lingering patriarchy and sexism. As they watched their male counterparts flourish and inherit the social power of their fathers they yearned for the same kind of freedom - and rightfully so.

One of the major barriers to women’s freedom was, has been, still is, and likely will be for a long time the burden that women must uniquely carry: pregnancy. It is because of their biological position alone that women have historically been saddled with child-rearing and homemaking.

The burden’s relevance to the counterculture was thus: the vast majority of women were unable to enjoy the sexual freedom that men were able to lest they get pregnant. A pregnancy is and always has been a life-altering experience, effectively transforming an individual’s life. Like most things, it has a time and place. When a woman feels secure in who she has developed into, is able to relate to herself through those around her and to identify herself based on her accomplishments, then she is ready to sacrifice a significant amount of her time, energy, resources and emotion into raising a child or children.

Men did not need to worry about that.

And so along came a miraculous little pill. Once popped, it had the potential to allow the individual a newfound freedom that became a staple of the counterculture. No, I’m not referring to LSD: it was the birth control pill. Something that many young women today take for granted was won only after a long uphill battle with the government, social conservatives and, most dauntingly, the Roman Catholic Church. It was a fight for women to have the same rights men did: the right to enjoy sexuality, something so fundamental to our humanity that Sigmund Freud based much of his psychological findings on how sex makes us tick.

And when we think about it, isn’t that right? Do we not base many of our mannerisms around attracting the opposite sex? Is sexual imagery and innuendo not pervasive in our cultures? Do we not all fall under the spell of randiness when we reach our hormonal peaks?

Sex is natural and it is beautiful, it is not something to be feared or shamed. Patriarchal ideas about “purity” abound when women’s sexuality is discussed, but how often is the standard of a woman being a “slut” applied to a man of equal promiscuity?

That’s because an idea silently infects the minds of the socially conservative: the idea that as bearers of the metaphorical fruit, women must keep their bodies clean so that the men can make use of them at their pleasure. Anti-feminists may laugh to scorn at this idea, but it’s not like it just popped into my head ludicrously one day. Women are genuinely sexually oppressed in Western society, always having to live in fear of being labeled “whore”, “slut”, or what have you by the self-proclaimed moralists.

This condition has led sex to be one of the ultimate taboos of Western society, an effective “hush-order” having been placed on it. The more we talk about sex, the more women are going to want to enjoy it like men do. God forbid!

Yeah, right.

It is almost exhausting to think about the many complexities that emerge in this debate. Since most of them are of little relevance to my central point, I will point out the most glaring of complexities and attempt to address it coherently.

The grandest complexity is summed up in the question “where should women stand as sexual beings in society?”.

On one hand we have the social moralists, the self-righteous conservatives who believe that their subscription for old world values who believe that a woman should be subservient to Her Husband the Breadwinner, basing her life around his comfort. His children are her responsibility; his nourishment is her concern; his sexual enjoyment is her duty.

On another hand we have the feminists, those who object to the status of women as sex objects. While this opposition is a uniting factor, there is a dividing factor: the question of how women SHOULD be seen.

For some, they disagree with all sexualization. They may identify as “feminists” due to their half-assed support for “equality” (no more thought-out than most peoples’ love for puppies), but their desire for a sexual hush-order places them squarely on the moralist side.

As far as I’m concerned, a true feminist would not deny that both men and women are sexual creatures by nature. Yes, a true feminist objects to sexual objectification of women. But in my view, one should not object to the sexual expressions of women.

The division line between objectification and healthy expression boils down to whether or not the woman appears in control of her sexuality or whether she appears as a purely material object. Is the woman expressing her own desires clearly? Is the woman in a position of submission? Does the woman appear comfortable, self-assured and confident, or does she appear mindless and empty? Do the woman’s emotions or personality come through, or is her body the only focus?

There’s a reason why Madonna is as widely revered for her musical expression of her personal sexual appetite as she is widely condemned for promoting an image of the “standard of beauty”. The so-called “standard of beauty” is a natural consequence of turning women into objects, ignoring their own sexual desires, personal beauty and individual identity.

The solution is not to ban pornography, as some authoritarian feminists have promoted. The solution is not to outlaw prostitution, condemn exotic dancers, or shut down Playboy’s operations. The answer is to forge a new culture of respect for the individuality of a woman, including respect and appreciation for her sexuality. The old view is that women are objects for the sexual enjoyment of men: the new view can be that the sexuality of both men and women are equally appreciated, respected and expressed.

*note: I am admittedly new to writing on feminist issues. I may lack the same articulation of my ideas in regard to this issue that I have with others that I am more familiar with. I am in need of feedback from feminists, particularly those who share my view that women should express their sexuality without being objectified, on how I can improve on my ability to convey this idea.

Abortion Rights are Pro-Life, by Leonard Peikoff

*note: I first came across this essay in a compilation of publications written on the subject of abortion, split roughly 50/50 between pro-life and pro-choice stances. This and another essay convinced me beyond a doubt that abortion should be available to all those who seek it. I despise the idea of taking a side on whether abortion is “right” or not because, simply, as a man it can never be my decision on whether or not to get an abortion. It is a personal issue for every woman because, as the other essay which I hope to find some time soon states, the issue is not whether the fetus is alive or not, but whether it can ever be moral to force a woman to be pregnant against her will. As far as I’m concerned, the answer is a resounding “NO!”. There is no hard evidence regarding what constitutes “life”, and hence what constitutes “murder”, and until there is it is only religion, morals and speculation that should guide each woman’s individual choice as to whether or not to have an abortion.*

This week hundreds of anti-abortionists will demonstrate outside Buffalo’s abortion clinics, bookstores and high schools. Where is their moral opposition? Today, no one is defending the right to abortion in fundamental terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.

Abortion rights advocates should not cede the terms “pro-life” and “right to life” to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman’s right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.

Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase “a woman’s right to choose.” Does she have the right to choose murder? That’s what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an “unborn child,” we could, with equal logic, call any adult an “undead corpse” and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman’s body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.

(”Independent” does not mean self-supporting — a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)

“Rights,” in Ayn Rand’s words, “do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”

It is only on this base that we can support the woman’s political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person — not even her husband — has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.

There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion — accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally — but not treated as a murderer.

If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion, which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman’s body.

If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it’s the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.

Being a parent is a profound responsibility — financial, psychological, moral — across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It’s a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that — as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.

The anti-abortionists’ attitude, however, is: “The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness.”

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the “right-to-life.”

The anti-abortionists’ claim to being “pro-life” is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life — lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.