Friday, March 10, 2006
I don't know what else to make of his bizarre post. Let us examine the evidence: --Egalia is a nationally-known and well-respected blogger in feminist circles. I write about cooters and boob freckles and think men should be able to opt out of fatherhood and therefore imagine I would not be well-respected even if I were better-known. And yet, that sweetie, Nathan Moore lumps us both together as "the usual suspects" as if our opinions are both equally well-known and regarded. --He compliments my youthful vigor when he says that I "seem to have the maturity of a slightly-advanced adolescent." --He calls me "liberated and enlightened." --He thinks I'm so tremendously powerful that I am "backbone of the family and Western civilization." Gosh. I don't know what to say. The last guy that talked that sweet to me had one hand stroking my cooter at the time. Nathan, I am so flattered, you don't even know. And not surprised. For whatever reason, married men love me. I think it's the beer in the fridge and my appreciation for a burp well-executed and gas well-passed. And I love it when men say sweet things about me, so flirt on all you want. I just want to be up front and let you know that I just don't see a future for us. Here's why. First of all, you don't know me. So, for you to say that my concern for rape victims and the victims of incest is disingenuous is just about the biggest asshole move you could make. Who do you think the victims of rape and incest are, Mr. Moore? They're women like me. They're my friends. They're the women in my family. For you to insinuate that I don't care about them is really amazingly gross. For a man attempting to make an argument that rests on his position being the most "humane," your callous refusal to acknowledge my humanity is pretty telling. But, in case I missed it, you call me a monster again--"ignoble" and "morally bankrupt" and "self-loathing." This is not the way to a girl's heart. Then, bless your heart, you ascribe to me positions that I don't hold--"Women are biologically different - scrap it. Women are mentally different - scrap it." When did I ever say that? In fact, it is precisely because I believe that women are different than men that I'm particularly disturbed by this latest move by a bunch of old men to take control of my uterus and to attempt to legislate what should happen inside of it. How can someone who's never had a uterus not hesitate before passing laws dictating what I must do with mine? But all these things I think I could get beyond. We might still have a future if not for this one line: "Why one as woman fights for a 'right' to nullify the primary differentiation between male and female boggles my mind." Are you really suggesting that the primary difference between men and women is that men have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies and women don't? That I should just accept that the state is trying to take away my right to say what happens to my own body? How can I ever be a full citizen of the United States if I don't have the right to liberty? You, as a lawyer, would know better than I, but can you think of any other instance in which the state would compel a citizen to always defer when his rights come into conflict with the rights of another? Yet, when it comes to making abortion illegal, what your side says is that a woman only has the right to be secure in her person--to make her own decisions about what happens to her own body--as long as no one else has a claim on it. If we only have rights when they don't conflict with others, we really don't have rights at all. We just have some privileges you guys have granted us and now that we're all uppity and "de-feminated," y'all are determined to punish us by making sure we understand that we don't belong to ourselves, we belong to the state. That's not exactly my idea of a fun date. Still, Mr. Moore, I appreciate you being so brazen in your mixed love/hate passion for me.