![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
If Men Had Uteruses
30/7/09 08:58Nicholas Kristof has a piece on The Times's Op-Ed page today about a young woman giving birth in Karachi. Because of local custom and poverty, her family resisted taking her to the hospital (which she had wanted all along) until it was too late; the woman survived, but her baby did not.
No argument from me (although I'd add that women's medicine as a whole gets short shrift). But: if men had uteruses they would be women. I'm not being funny here. The ability to produce a living creature from inside us is, when you get right down to it, the biological difference between the sexes, the thing that supposedly makes women nurturers and men warriors (as if). If men could do it, would they be in the power seat? Would it all be lovely and equal, or would the warriors (of whatever gender) find a new basis for their superiority? Just wondering.
On a related note: across the spread in the Letters to the Editors column, a (doubtless well meaning, because God knows we all are) "pro-life Democrat" weighs in on the murder of Dr. George Tiller.
Two different issues here, sir (and yes, the writer is male): reducing abortion's frequency should start with access to sex ed and birth control. Abortion is not for fun: it's serious, emotionally fraught, and the best thing about it is that it's often better than the alternative for the woman who is pregnant. "Legal, safe, and rare sounds like an attainable, excellent goal. It's this matching "unwanted children with couples desperate to adopt" that sticks in my craw. A woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy--a process that is exhausting, harrowing, and risky even if you want that baby with all your heart. The writer assumes that the end result--a baby to make someone else's life complete--is all important. The health and sanity and life of the mother, not so much. If men had uteruses, would they be so cheery about insisting that pregnancy should be carried to term because it can?
Outside, her husband, Allahdita, was grieving but philosophical. "It is God's will," he said, shrugging. "There is nothing we can do."
That's incorrect. If men had uteruses, "paternity wards" would get resources, ambulances would transport pregnant men to hospitals free of charge, deliveries would be free, and the Group of 9 industrialized nations would make paternal mortality a top priority. One of the most lethal forms of sex discrimination is this systematic inaatention to reproductive health care, from family planning to childbirth--so long as those who die are impoverished, voiceless women.
No argument from me (although I'd add that women's medicine as a whole gets short shrift). But: if men had uteruses they would be women. I'm not being funny here. The ability to produce a living creature from inside us is, when you get right down to it, the biological difference between the sexes, the thing that supposedly makes women nurturers and men warriors (as if). If men could do it, would they be in the power seat? Would it all be lovely and equal, or would the warriors (of whatever gender) find a new basis for their superiority? Just wondering.
On a related note: across the spread in the Letters to the Editors column, a (doubtless well meaning, because God knows we all are) "pro-life Democrat" weighs in on the murder of Dr. George Tiller.
Wouldn't it be in the best interests of of both sides of the debate to seek ways to reduce abortion's frequency? Why aren't we working harder to match unwanted children with couples desperate to adopt?
Two different issues here, sir (and yes, the writer is male): reducing abortion's frequency should start with access to sex ed and birth control. Abortion is not for fun: it's serious, emotionally fraught, and the best thing about it is that it's often better than the alternative for the woman who is pregnant. "Legal, safe, and rare sounds like an attainable, excellent goal. It's this matching "unwanted children with couples desperate to adopt" that sticks in my craw. A woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy--a process that is exhausting, harrowing, and risky even if you want that baby with all your heart. The writer assumes that the end result--a baby to make someone else's life complete--is all important. The health and sanity and life of the mother, not so much. If men had uteruses, would they be so cheery about insisting that pregnancy should be carried to term because it can?