The Toronto Star doesn’t get anything right. There is a silly little column about political pantywaist Sam Oosterhoff, and it is worth tearing apart because of its sheer ignorance to reality:
I am putting his name forward to be the first Canadian male anti-abortion politician to gestate a baby, the minute science effectively figures out how to do it. Apparently for a male to have a fertilized egg planted inside of his body and to gestate it until it’s ready for birth is life-threatening. Oh no!
This is a childish argument that completely ignores reality. Why are you pretending that men don’t have vulnerabilities when it comes to reproductive rights? They don’t need to get pregnant: they have sperm, and that’s good enough to put their own reproductive rights on the table.
Feminism keeps doing the same things and employing the same strategies, which is the reason why women’s rights are always precarious and never entrenched. You can’t keep using defensive strategies when your opponents keep using offensive ones. You have to learn to link their fortunes with yours: whatever happens to you will happen to them. You take away the rigs of barriers: they want women to lose their reproductive rights, then so do those who call for it. We take away men’s rights to choose when they can reproduce, if they can, with whom, how many times, and where.
If pregnant women are being framed as “host bodies”, frame men as “sperm gifters.” They gave away their sperm, they have no claim to it.
What you give to one, you must give to the other. You don’t make hypothetical arguments. You don’t justify yourself or allow yourself to be put on the table. You don’t fight to keep your rights — you go after the other side’s rights. Anything else is regression. This is a new war; ergo you use new strategies to ensure the other side knows that if they throw a grenade at you, you are chaining yourself to them first, meaning the explosion will hit them just as hard.
But women have this unnatural habit of justifying themselves to men and explaining and arguing. I once had a sexist male relative who kept trying to break me in for as long as I could remember. I could be dressed to the nines, and he’d say, “You have a pimple,” to which I replied, “And you have a huge glaring bald spot where hair used to be.” He lost the battle and then lost the war. You want to point out a real or perceived flaw on me, I upped the ante and struck where it hurt the most. Asshole, you don’t have the monopoly.
If it is all about reproduction, then start at the very beginning. If we are using biblical arguments about how God made man first, then his sperm is fair game. It’s God’s will and all that jazz. If women cannot be trusted, then neither can men.
When those misogynists are too busy fighting for the survival of their own rights, they have no time to meddle in other people’s rights. Feminists would be wise to throw away their old playbooks. They are obviously flawed. Bridging rights and entrenching that bridging puts the manipulators on notice that there are going to be heavy and painful consequences for their scamming — and anti-choice is a scam — it is a form of propaganda that uses fear-mongering to keep women in place so they do not succeed more than men. It creates a false pecking order and to indulge it is an admission that the pecking order is real and just.
And it is neither. Go after Oosterhoff’s reproductive rights. He is sheltered and insulated from reality and a nice big cold bucket of reality water would keep the little twerp and his ilk in their place.
The Toronto Star has no clue about reality, either. They puke 60s bullshit in a 2019 world. It’s no better and offers no solutions to how to create a real and lasting utopia…