Yesterday, I wrote this:
Now, don't get me wrong - I fight like the devil against misogyny and domestic violence and subjugation of women and while I am someone who is "pro-life" (i.e., support life from conception to grave and believe life begins at conception) I will also fight tooth and nail to protect the legal reproductive choices and freedoms of women.
I am committed to care for neighbor without neglect of self.
Does that make me a prude?
Fine, if it does, then call me a prude.
Today, I read this:
Yesterday I described highlights of a recent abortion conference at Princeton University. The conference brought together pro-lifers and pro-choicers for an open-minded discussion of their differences and possible areas of collaboration. It illuminated various steps each side could take to advance a common agenda. In yesterday's article, I suggested some lessons for pro-lifers. Today I'll sketch some ideas for pro-choicers.
Now, I realize that by writing this diary, I am breaking with a hard-fought, long-held commitment within the liberal hegemony regarding abortion rights, reproductive freedom, shame, guilt, and sex. But this is too important for us to screw up.
As Will Saletan goes on to say:
Robin West, a Georgetown law professor, added:
I have many, many students who are against the criminalization of abortion, who are pro-sex, pro-birth control, and morally opposed to most or many or even all abortions because of their belief in or their commitment regarding the moral status of fetal life. That's a perfectly coherent argument shared by many. It's no longer an unusual position within the pro-life and pro-choice community.
These pro-life, pro-choice young people are the voice of the future. Listen to them. Speak for them.
My full comment yesterday was in response to Deaniac's daring and dangerous diary about "Left Puritans" - a provocative term in itself made worse by some careless remarks within the diary that left feelings hurt and left a lot of people feeling justified and a lot of others feeling misunderstood.
Today's diary is a continuation of a comment I made, in response to a comment that Slinkerwink made, in response to Deaniac's diary. My full comment is as follows:
The idea that one must like sex a lot in order to be liberal is troubling to me.
The idea that I must condone or celebrate a nation where increasing numbers of children are born without involved fathers - where divorce and family fragmentation cost our government $110 billion+ each year - is something I cannot support.
The idea that others can be promiscuous and force me to pick up the tab for their childcare is troubling to me.
Now, don't get me wrong - I fight like the devil against misogyny and domestic violence and subjugation of women and while I am someone who is "pro-life" (i.e., support life from conception to grave and believe life begins at conception) I will also fight tooth and nail to protect the legal reproductive choices and freedoms of women.
I am committed to care for neighbor without neglect of self.
Does that make me a prude?
Fine, if it does, then call me a prude.
I don't so much want to give women fewer choices as to give them better choices. I want my daughter not to be victimized, sexualized, objectified, or violated. I want my son to learn that women are for more than just fucking.
Do my sexual ethics make me a puritan?
I seek to expose my beliefs - that we have an epidemic of teen pregnancy and single parenthood in Tennessee, and especially in our African-American community - without imposing my beliefs on others.
Am I free to do this without being belittled or attacked or condemned?
By no means do I think it's healthy, good, or even righteous not to like sex. I think healthy sexuality is a celebration of our selves and our connections to others - a delightful and wonderful celebration of intimacy and sometimes just a desire to feel connected, or powerful, or relieved, or good, or lovable. At the same time, I realize that sometimes sex is a substitute for genuine intimacy. I know that sex can be used as a tool of subjugation, violence, intimidation, seduction, and for fully one-third of women (who have been sexually assaulted at some point) it is an area of their experience that has caused hurt, pain, suffering, and even victimization.
I also know that unprotected vaginal intercourse can get you pregnant. I know that men cannot get pregnant, and women can. I know that this is a fundamental difference between men and women, and something we must both acknowledge and properly value if we are going to do right politically.
I don't think women are the "weaker sex," as St. Peter taught. I think it's tremendously powerful to be able to bring life into the world. I think women are amazing, and as a heterosexual married man, I think women deserve the utmost respect. To be a woman is, in part, to be able to bring another human being into existence. That is absolutely one of the most highly valued abilities in the world to me, and something I uphold and protect as sacred. Being a woman doesn't make you weak - it makes women powerful in a unique way that men are not.
So, that's where I stand. I think sex is great. I think childbirth is great. I think babies are great. I think we should protect, celebrate, and uphold the value of women's amazing power to give birth to new human life.
But not every woman thinks that way. Not every man thinks that way. As an American, I support free speech, free religious expression, and privacy rights as they are enshrined in the Constitution.
But I request that what I value is protected - i.e., that because I think sex is amazing, powerful, life-giving, intimate, sacred, and wonderful, others not seek to exploit, distort, or violate my sexuality. What I value, I protect.
At the same time, I recognize that others may not value sexuality in the same way that I do. Others may think of their sexuality as an opportunity to seduce others for whatever power purposes they may have. Others may think of their sexuality as a curse - a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad thing that gets in the way of just being able to relate to others. Still others may think of sexuality as something fun and enjoyable, meant for pleasure and an expression of freedom in relationship to others. Those individuals may feel frustrated by my "obsession" with sexuality, or my prudishness, or my religious constriction, or whatever. And that's fine. What you value, I respect.
I am unabashedly pro-life, from conception to grave. I think life is a sacred gift. I believe that life is a miracle that begins at conception and I believe that the rights of the unborn ought to be considered as co-equal in many ways with the rights of the pregnant woman. (Note: I say, "In many ways". Not ALL ways.) Having said that, I also recognize that to attribute full human rights to an unborn fetus would imply that the unborn fetus has a right to "liberty" and that such a fetus should not be forced to inhabit a woman's body, nor should that woman be forced to accept the violation of an unwanted pregnancy. So, we're at a stand-off. Whose rights are more important? The right to life of the fetus or the right to liberty/pursuit of happiness of the mother?
Now, if we fully embraced Catholic social teaching, we wouldn't have this problem, because we would uphold the belief that women and families deserve our total support. We would embrace things like Pre-K, universal affordable (non-profit!) healthcare, social capitalism, etc. But we are not in a Catholic theocracy. So we must find common-sense policies that protect the religious rights of all Americans while simultaneously promoting the general welfare and the basic human rights that are enshrined in the Constitution and international law.
Back to the Slate article...
The Princeton event was hailed as an opportunity for pro-life and pro-choice advocates to come together and find common ground. Few issues have been as divisive, politically, over the past 40 years. But this divisiveness doesn't reflect the real political views of most Americans, who find a way to believe what they believe without the black/white bipolarity that we see in Congress or even on the Supreme Court. The startling and (for many) troubling statistics about abortion and reproductive health in the United States (1.2 million a year, infant mortality rates in places like Memphis are similar to 3rd World countries, 1.2 million divorces each year, 4 million incidents of domestic violence, 1/3 of women sexually assaulted in their lifetimes) often reflect the extremes and the margins of our society, not the mainstream everyday experience of the vast majority of Americans. But if the concerns are at the margins, then our policy should seek to support and protect the marginalized - the addict, the prostitute, the LGBT community, the single moms, etc. And we must also take the bold necessary steps to protect others from those who are the most predatory and pose the greatest risk to society - the sociopath, the narcissists, the women who have repeated, multiple abortions and who use abortion irresponsibly as a substitute for preventative reproductive health services.
As Democrats - as liberal Democrats - it is important for our political well-being that we show the same respect to others that we expect and demand for ourselves. That means that what we value, we protect ... but what others value, we respect. It means that we must understand the deeply-held religious views of the Evangelical and Catholic communities, but without permitting those views to be imposed on us.
One important aspect of this is eliminating what John Gottman calls "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" from our relationships. Gottman, a marital therapist and researcher at the University of Washington, is perhaps the world's foremost authority on why couples divorce and why relationships end. He outlines four key behaviors that are relationally toxic and must absolutely be avoided:
- Criticism
- Defensiveness
- Contempt
- Stonewalling
Let me briefly describe each, based on my own clinical experience and research and the work of Dr. Gottman:
- Criticism: There is a difference between a complaint and a criticism. A complaint is specific, targeted to behavior, and focused on improving relational interaction. In short, it is a bid for attention and a turning-toward the Other. For instance, "When you talk about me that way, I feel belittled. Can you say it this way instead?"
A criticism, on the other hand, is a blanket statement usually involving a judgment of the person's character or personality. "You're so rude! What's wrong with you?!" It immediately leads to...
- Defensiveness: Defensiveness is, in one way, a typical and natural response to criticism. The "blame-defend" cycle is something that doesn't lead conversations forward - it keeps them in gridlock. Defensiveness is a posture that says that you are unwilling to change, unwilling to accept constructive feedback, and unwilling or unable to allow the other person to influence you. Typically, a defensive response will look for counterpoints or counter-accusations to shift blame or demand proof. "Well, if you weren't being such a jerk, I wouldn't be rude to you!" It is a way of responding to the problem by turning away from or against the Other. That tends to lead to...
- Contempt: This is usually the beginning of the end of a healthy relationship. Because when contempt comes in, the conversation is usually over. It's when the pie fight begins. Contempt is most often nonverbal - in fact, Gottman discovered it mainly through video-taping of therapy sessions and noted that it often doesn't show up in a transcript. It's an eye-roll or a arm-folding or some other behavioral sign (a wave of the hand) that says, "There's no point in talking to you! This conversation is over."
When we treat others with contempt, we dehumanize them. We delegitimize their claims.
I left the Republican Party after voting Bush in 2000. I get a fair amount of contempt for the fact that I voted Bush from Democrats who can't believe I was enough of an idiot to fall for his BS. (Contempt about my lack of contempt...) And I get that. But when Bush was elected President, he was only someone who was executing guilty prisoners on death row, and not a war criminal who invaded Iraq unjustly. I do believe that those who act contemptibly must be stopped from representing America. I believe that there is a time and place for contempt in politics, but not in healthy relationships. The problem with contempt is that it leads to...
- Stonewalling: This is a response to contempt that usually involves emotional flooding. When you're emotionally flooded, you are so upset that you can't even talk anymore. Your blood pressure goes up, your nostrils flare, and your palms sweat. There is a sense of being emotionally abandoned that is so profound that the only response is to head for the hills emotionally and put up your strongest defense, which is silence.
Stonewalling is what happens when an individual feels so dehumanized, misunderstood, belittled, or demeaned that the only possible response (so it seems) is to disengage completely.
It's worth noting that stonewalling is often protective for self and other, because to engage at that moment of heightened tensions is usually what leads to domestic violence. The adrenaline and intense negative emotions of anger and fear are precursors to rage and a "fight or flight" response. It's usually better to flee than to fight when you're in a no-win situation.
But the crazy-making part of the political world we're in is that people who act contemptibly keep showing up in Washington DC and in our blogosphere and in the Netroots and all over our world. (Next week, chances are good that they'll show up - maybe drunk! - at Thanksgiving dinner.) What President Obama is dealing with right now is a Senate GOP that not only acts contemptibly (i.e., calling him a socialist, lying about legislation, etc.) but also stonewalls any attempts at collaboration. We saw this earlier in the week when the GOP leaders of the House and Senate refused to attend a meeting called by the President of the United States. (Who does that?!)
On the other side of the aisle, there are Republicans who honestly believe in their heart of hearts that America's greatness is being diminished by our deficit spending, our unbalanced budgets, our willingness to negotiate with Muslim countries in the Middle East, the illegal immigrants in our midst, and our unwillingness to "Drill Here Drill Now" and build more nuclear plants. But the biggest problem for America right now is that Republicans are not only holding a different opinion. They are engaging in every one of the Four Horsemen, and when they act in such a contemptible, contemptuous way, they fail to exhibit the kind of leadership that we should support.
There are 30-odd newly-elected Senators who are going to be there for 6 more years. Those who are leaving recognize that the atmosphere in Washington DC is toxic, and some of them truly desire to end things on a good note. But time is running out.