-
Were you just being provocative, Emily? Describing a best-case abortion as nothing more than "a few not ideal hours'' makes it sound like an afternoon at the DMV without a good book. And aren't you being just as categorical as you say Caitlin Flanagan is when you argue that giving a child up for adoption is definitely trickier than having an abortion? (Except when it's not?) Whether you think abortion is morally neutral, intrinsically evil, or the gray area that hijacked our whole political debate, though, here's what I wish we could agree on: There is no other-than-partisan purpose in lobbies on both sides of this issue raising huge sums that only stoke the argument, like some hideous perpetual flame. And despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it's the fight itself that keeps us from focusing on the widely agreed-upon need for birth control, birth control, for heaven's sake birth control.
That Erica Jong post on girl-written puff pieces that Dahlia mentioned made me laugh, though; first, why shouldn't we have enough confidence to cop to an interest in not only Iraq and the Darfur and the dollar, but also shoes and Carla Bruni and poor, poor Katie Holmes? (Today's shiniest news bauble: The man Princess Diana considered the love of her life has, as the Daily Mail put it, "run to fat.'' In his first-ever, "world exclusive'' interview Pakistani doctor Hasnat Khan, reveals ... lots less than the photo of him does. "I found her a very normal person. ... I think she did great work for the country. ... I always wanted to follow in the footsteps of my maternal grandfather, who was a doctor.'') If women really were the lead dogs on the newshound puff patrol, however, we'd completely dominate daily journalism at this point, because we are all style reporters now. There's no mystery about why that might be; as news outfits cut staff to boost stock—and are expected to magically do More with Less—it's way cheaper to provide commentary than reporting. And though women are still overrepresented on the boo-hoo brigades sent out to gather quotes from grieving families, I think I mostly differ with Jong on what the meaning of "puff'' is.
She complains that we delve into such "idiotic'' and trivial matters as a political candidate's marriage—but then also charges that we "never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father?'' I write a lot about political marriages, so I guess her puff pastry is my meat and potatoes. But isn't looking at a candidate's closest relationships how we find out about bomb-happy dry drunks trying to play out Oedipal wars? Not a whole lot of that sort of thing comes of just-the-facts coverage of position papers. Doubtless we can do a better job of covering the issues, even in our current pared-down state. As can any readers who feel deprived of substance.
-
Rachael, your post on the decision of a Portland, Maine, middle school to allow students to get prescription birth control without parental notification was prescient. Everyone’s gone bonkers toady and O’Reilly is hardly even the most unhinged. (Best line from O’Reilly’s post today “It is ironic that the week my book "Cultural Warrior" comes out in paperback, intense culture battles erupt across the country.”) Imagine, Bill’s book comes out in paperback and culture battles happen in America!!!
I agree with you Rachael that there is something ick-inducing about giving birth control pill to 10-year-olds. But I am still not hearing any good argument for how this differs from handing out condoms – something the school had been doing for eight years. Is it the difference between providing birth control to girls instead of boys? Is it O’Reilly’s distinction that condoms prevent disease whereas pills prevent “only” pregnancy? Or is there something about offering someone else’s child a pill that makes the Portland scheme more intrusive?
Largely agree with Anne and Ms. Thatcher, but a quick note on yesterday’s blog criticism: It’s bizarre to me to hear that Slate is somehow better for the “Feminist Project” without a women’s blog than with it. It’s even harder to fathom how our women writers are better “feminists” if they avoid discussing women’s issues. Is this some new half-starved Beverly Hills feminism: Do everything you can to present yourself as less of a person than you actually are?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?