This picture reminded me a lot about what we talked about in class today about womanhood through the lens of this current political campaign.
On one hand, there is a prevailing opinion that women need to be taken care of. With that come all of these mandates about abortion and about contraception. And to some that makes sense. But it excludes the ability for women to think for themselves. It's like Mary's "Like a Boss" article. A man of status and money is someone that a woman would want to depend on regardless of his understanding of what womanhood consists of.
That aside, I think this reveals an underlying element of most of the gender-charged things that people have been posting. Women need to be taken care of. Men can take care of women. That line of reasoning includes a hidden point of "logic" that women are stupid and men are not. Women need to be taken care of (because they are too stupid to do it themselves) and men can take care of women (because they are not stupid and know better what women need to be doing).
It reminds me of the Gorgias reading when it comes up that a rhetorician could persuade an audience in regards to matters of health and diet more than an actual doctor or cookery expert could. The rhetorician wouldn't have nearly the knowledge base, but he could be convincing enough to have his point taken above what is based in fact. That's what these male politicians are doing. They are standing up and persuading an audience to feel a certain way about women's health issues without being a woman or understanding how women's health works. This man doesn't have any idea why someone would want an abortion, but if you ask him if one should have one he will resoundingly say no. He will persuade others to say no. Meanwhile, actual women who want to have abortions will be screwed over by this rhetorician masquerading as a women's health activist.
I like the comparison to Gorgias Carson! Very fitting I believe. I'm interested in how the guy in the graphic above tries to use metaphor (of economics) and then it kind of blows up in his face. At first glance the argument appears to be that he is not a woman, so how can he understand the issue of abortion. But it's really about how he hasn't even stepped into a woman's shoes, even for one second, and thought about the issue from a perspective other than his own. That makes him disingenuous and is why he fails to win the argument. I certainly think it is possible to argue issues such as abortion on a common field, between men and women, but you have to be able to empathize. This guy I don't believe has that skill in regard to this issue.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing he isn't mentioning is the terror that women may feel if love child's are prevented. The fear of pregNancy is one of the bullets that keeps men from straying off the Rez. There is also the "floating" force pressure of when a woman is pregnant, bot M/F units become "serious" adults and get jobs. Slaves to economic pressures that empower corps. How many work jobs they hate for the bennies?
ReplyDelete