How much is America trapped in its Puritan legacy? After several hundred years, with influxes from all over the world, have we changed? When I lived in the UK for 2 months, my British colleagues chided me that "Americans are so puritanical."
This week has seen several thought-provoking diaries on issues of women, sex, reproductive rights, and rape. In a unique turn of things, we all have opportunities to hear women's stories of rape and abortion (as a doctor and as a patient), in an arena where they will not be stigmatized, ostracized, or judged. Each diary was spectacular, but the real value was in the comments. I've appreciated the opportunity to put a human face on complex issues that cannot be solved easily - and WILL not be solved with the GOP in power.
Recommend this if you would like to discuss some of these issues - with perhaps a new perspective. I'd like to start by asking: Are we still living in the age of The Scarlet Letter?
The Whole Book in a Few Paragraphs
To those (like me) who haven't picked the book up since high school, here are a few paragraphs on the plot, characterization, and themes of
The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne's writing style is only slightly easier to read than Faulkner's, but the book brings a payoff if you can stick with it. I remember reacting to the hypocrisy of the Puritan culture when I read it. The book's two sinners are living, breathing, red-blooded human beings. They inject life into their town. Everyone else - the good, "moral" people - seemed a little bit dead inside to me, only receiving vivacity from Hester Prynne and Arthur Dimmesdale (the sinners).
Source: Sparknotes.com
Plot
Hester's husband, a scholar much older than she is, sent her ahead to America, but he never arrived in Boston. The consensus is that he has been lost at sea. While waiting for her husband, Hester has apparently had an affair, as she has given birth to a child. She will not reveal her lover's identity, however, and the scarlet letter, along with her public shaming, is her punishment for her sin and her secrecy.
Hester's Role
By the novel's end, Hester has become a protofeminist mother figure to the women of the community. The shame attached to her scarlet letter is long gone. Women recognize that her punishment stemmed in part from the town fathers' sexism, and they come to Hester seeking shelter from the sexist forces under which they themselves suffer."
Dimmesdale's Role (Dimmesdale is the father of the baby)
The fact that Hester takes all of the blame for their shared sin goads his conscience, and his resultant mental anguish and physical weakness open up his mind and allow him to empathize with others. Consequently, he becomes an eloquent and emotionally powerful speaker and a compassionate leader, and his congregation is able to receive meaningful spiritual guidance from him.
Ironically, the couple's sins free them
For Hester, the scarlet letter functions as "her passport into regions where other women dared not tread," leading her to "speculate" about her society and herself more "boldly" than anyone else in New England. As for Dimmesdale, the "burden" of his sin gives him "sympathies so intimate with the sinful brotherhood of mankind, so that his heart vibrate[s] in unison with theirs." His eloquent and powerful sermons derive from this sense of empathy.
The Puritan elders, on the other hand, insist on seeing earthly experience as merely an obstacle on the path to heaven. Thus, they view sin as a threat to the community that should be punished and suppressed. Their answer to Hester's sin is to ostracize her. Yet, Puritan society is stagnant, while Hester and Dimmesdale's experience shows that a state of sinfulness can lead to personal growth, sympathy, and understanding of others. Paradoxically, these qualities are shown to be incompatible with a state of purity.
This Week on dKos
Ok, so now that everyone's had American Literature 101, let's talk.
I, for one, was not shocked at the high rate of rapes reported anonymously here. I was also not shocked at the discrepancy between the CDC's numbers of reported rapes and the poll here. I had to check "gray area" - which my doctor encouraged me to report and I refused. Rape is a serious accusation, especially when I didn't know his name and I wasn't sure if it was his fault.
I was, however, floored by the number of people who reported being molested as children, some by a family member, many multiple times or by multiple people. And I hadn't even really thought about rape by a husband. I'd heard of it though. Actually, perhaps the one decent thing that Hager did was highlight the issue that rape by a husband exists in America.
You don't bring these numbers down by appointing a veterinarian to work on women's health issues as Bush did.
Part of the Problem? An Unhealthy View of Sex
If you read through the thousands of comments this week brought, you'll see a few themes repeated. I've read a few women say they chose abortion partially because they could not face their towns if anyone found out they were pregnant. Often enough, the women who said such a thing grew up in fundamentalist Christian towns in the south. My college room mate grew up in a small, liberal enough town in Iowa, and I know she was extremely secretive about her sexual activity - ironically, she only had sex with her boyfriend on Sundays while everyone else was at church.
The point I am going for is that the same demographic that wants to vote abortion illegal (and advocates that 100% of abortions could be resolved by adoption) is driving women toward abortion with their hateful judging of others. If women in these towns carried their babies to term and gave them up for adoption, they would be ostracized by their families, friends, churches, and schools. And the amazing thing? As some women go through this experience, some maintain that they are anti-choice. One person cited in a comment she knew of someone who was "pro-life" and had an abortion, insisting it was an exception when she did it and maintained that no one else should have the same right.
Also Not Helping: Absent or Misleading Sex Education
I refer you to two sources about the effects of Bush's beloved "abstinence-only" education: The Education of Shelby Knox and Rep. Miller's letter regarding 4parents.gov's inaccuracies (the letter is a PDF - excerpts in HTML are here).
The rapture right creep I spoke to (one of the AFA's top lawyers) a few weeks ago told me that classrooms with comprehensive sex education were teaching our nation's youth about fisting. He said it with a tone of voice that let me know I was supposed to be shocked, and I was not supposed to approve. I am only foggy myself on what fisting actually is - although I am sure I could put forth a few good guesses. And it is probably not a behavior any parent wants the public schools to encourage in their child. I get that. BUT... BUT... since obviously fisting exists and people try it - which would you prefer? A teacher lying to a child or refusing to discuss it... or a teacher explaining the concept briefly and educating a child (and I'm assuming we mean a 16 year old or so here) what the risks are and what safety precautions are available?
That's an extreme example. That's the sensationalism of the right. Ironically, much the right would probably feel fairly comfortable with the comprehensive sex ed I received in high school. My teacher (named Amy Grant, no joke) graduated from a local fundie college (Wheaton Bible College). She was about to be married and spoke to the class about why she was still a virgin. Honestly, I think she lost more ground than she gained with that one, but at least no one could call her a hypocrite for advocating "waiting." The last line of every lesson was always "And what's the only way to definitely avoid pregnancy and disease? Abstinence." No bones were made about that one. But we learned the pros and cons of various birth control methods, and we learned about all sorts of STDs and a bit about pregnancy too. Ms. Grant handed out a thick packet of justifications for why someone may choose to wait to have sex until they are married. I didn't swallow it (wow, bad word choice), but you can't say the school was advocating we go out and have sex at age 15 and 16.
So. A happy medium exists between fisting and lying to kids that condoms don't work. This is just an extension of the right's war on (and disdain for) science. Toning down the fisting curriculum I can understand, but lying should always be unacceptable. Although I am beginning to wonder if all righties see lying the way I see the legality of pot smoking. I mean, pot is on the books as illegal, but it's not really illegal (but for the fact my bro got busted on felony charges and tossed out of school for it).
Roe v. Wade as a False Focal Point
The following is an except from a Kansas newspaper opinion piece, which you can see on MyLeftWing
Whether I am "pro-life" or "pro-choice" does not alter the facts.
Fact: Never in the history of this country -- or the world, for that matter -- did passing a law stop anything. All a law accomplishes is to inflict a penalty on anyone breaking that law. ...
Fact: There was abortion before Roe v. Wade. It was called "illegal abortion" then. "
What do anti-choice people hope to gain by overturning Roe? They've been shrieking and hollering about it for so many decades now, I'm not even sure if they know. Will it stop them, their wives, girlfriends, and daughters from obtaining abortions? Probably not. Their propaganda machines tell you that while overturning Roe won't eliminate abortion, it will decrease them drastically (citing pre-Roe v Wade statistics). They like to compare it to the Holocaust (which offends me, as a Jew). I'm glad abortion - if it is going to happen, legal or no - is performed by licensed professionals and regulated by the government (although that's not getting into some of the more ridiculous regulations that are really an attempt to limit access to care).
Insult to Injury: Sexual Abuse, Molestation, and Rape
The other day, Jon Stewart said to O'Reilly, "I may add insult to injury, but you add injury." Only a little under half of female Kossacks report never being raped, experiencing a "murky grey area," or fending off a would-be rapist (and I am sure some men have been raped too). Our society does not have a healthy or educated view of sex already. Solving health issues is one thing, but reducing and prosecuting crime on top of that?
I read a few comments where women said they couldn't tell if they had said no or not, so they weren't sure. I'm in that group. How can you tell, anyway? All we're taught in school is that you always want to say no. What happens when you learn that sometimes you want to say yes? And then sometimes you're left there in the moment, trying to decide. What do you do when a guy is there, taking advantage of that hesitation?
How many reported rapes result in a conviction? Another issue here I saw an article about: the capability, awareness, and motivation of the police to go after issues of domestic dispute and violence. There was a case I saw where police wouldn't enforce a restraining order and a woman lost her life. Yet another issue raised here was the risk a pregnant woman faces of being murdered. The statistic quoted here on dKos was that of all deaths of pregnant women, homocide was the second leading cause. The context of the discussion was that often an abortion is a life-saving procedure when a woman is trying to escape an abusive partner.
How It All Comes Together
It seems to me like there is a cycle here of healthy behaviors by us, the liberals, the Hester Prynnes and Arthur Dimmesdales - the sinners; and a competing cycle of unhealthy behaviors by our country's good moral folks - the modern day Puritans (whom I affectionately call "the Flat Earthers").
Safe, Legal, and Rare plays out well when combined with healthy economic policy, responsible management of national security and emergency management (look at the affects of FEMA on women with unwanted pregnancies), comprehensive sex education, access to healthcare and birth control (Can you imagine a government grant that purchased condoms and made them available in post offices, public libraries, colleges and universities, and other locations? Even better, what if birth control pills were free and annual pelvic exams were available for a small copay? In terms of a use for our tax dollars, that would be a HUGE bang for our buck!), reproductive rights with policy crafted based on science, and... shit, we've got to do something about the rapes. We could put more cops on the street, but look how many rapes go unreported? The key is prevention.
As for the rightwing wedge issue of partial birth abortion - the more they limit access to abortion and increase waiting periods and hoops to jump through, the later in the term abortions will get.
Liberals realize that we are all human. We embody the empathy of the couple in The Scarlet Letter. Rape and abortion rarely have a human face on them. Sex is a taboo subject here, and women who undergo already harrowing experiences rarely broadcast them. I can't speak for rape, because I have a hunch that more than a few rapists voted for Kerry last November, but at least in terms of abortion, the pro-choice demographic can imagine themselves in the shoes of a woman who, for whatever reason, does not feel able to carry her child to term. The stories provided by moiv's diary were heartwrenching. I urge you to read the scenarios in the diary if you haven't already - these are not the careless, irresponsible women the right wants you to think make up the demographic seeking abortions.
Are we pro-abortion? Are we for teaching children fisting in school? No. Teachers have a commitment to education and healthcare providers have a commitment to science and patient care. Why can't the right trust them to do their jobs in good faith? Measure are in place to regulate them of course. Within healthcare, physicians, nurse practitioners, etc, have their licenses on the line. New electronic medical record software systems keep precise audit trails. Teachers are reviewed and observed regularly.
As a member of the reality-based community, it kills me that the faith-based segment of America have not moved past the closed-mindedness of our Puritan heritage. (By faith-based, I do not mean "religious people" as a whole group. I merely mean the sub-section who are anti-science.)
I will leave you with a study that was in the news a few weeks ago:
Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.
He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. -- which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) -- also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.