They Hate Us for Our (Reproductive) Freedom

black pregnant womanThe barrage of late, regarding reproductive legislation shouldn’t be viewed as an assault only on women, but an attempt to curtail and contain the entire population, men included. It’s a broad, scorched earth policy that won’t end with this patchwork of bills.

They hate us for our freedom, and I’m not talking about the “terrorists”.

To be clear in this, I would say that one could be sympathetic in the past with those anti-abortion individuals who seemed sincere in their belief that it was wrong, even if you disagreed with them. But here’s the thing — those beliefs never seemed to be combined with a desire to provide easily accessible birth control or even an acceptance of a sexuality that didn’t result in procreation.

The more recent assaults further flesh out their worldview. They are going after not just abortion, but the very funding that prevents unwanted pregnancies. It’s an ownership ethos that is punishing and immovable.

Those with these ideas seem to feel something of a punitive pull — another may be less restrained in some manner, and they can’t abide that — I’m not free they exude, and in something of a hazing mentality, want others to go through what they did, and be just as miserable. It goes beyond sexuality and broaches the very limits of what we call free will.

abortion debateIt’s not really a shocking development when you consider that we are all considered simple consumers by most in power. Ownership and boundary issues stem from that, and can become cherished topics of the authoritarians. The bodies of women are simply easy pickings. You are pretty freaking vulnerable waddling around at 8 ½ months, and forcing that upon the many is a magnificent control method.

It has morphed into something beyond abortion, into private sexual behavior — an area the “anti-government” types can’t seem to get enough of. Freedom of any kind is feared. Any hint of anarchism (and I’m talking about the lack of external controllers on individual freedom — not the more skewed and corrupted notion of that word) is terrifying to those in power. I suspect that this was the main reason for some of the brutal Occupy take-downs.

Sure, they didn’t want wealth disparity being discussed, but I think they also feared a model of concern for communal well-being. That goes against the constraints that cause us all to stand in line for the latest hideous cubicle job, and step on each other to get it.

The inconvenient fact that the US government was built on a notion of the separation of church and state is not a concern to these types, either. They can’t fathom that they would ever not be in power — that their own rights could truly be at risk.

This exposes the hypocrisy of their constant bellowing out as victims. If they really perceived their station as such, they might push for protective measures against the will of a tyrannical group being thrust upon others. It’s an amazing unstated assertion that they have no true fear of anyone else ever really being in control — the railing against Muslims/Buddhist/Atheists/Others is pure theater.

And the true believers seem to be carrying water for those who just want the populace under control — they benefit from that arrangement, and will never have to live under the same rules. They know their wealth and power would preclude that. I suspect they enjoy the show.

This control can force men to stay at awful jobs to support the family, just as it can do to the woman. You are certainly not likely to become an activist during dangerous times if you fear for the survival of your children.

And having kids sometimes ties individuals into a lifestyle they would otherwise not choose. This is not to say that children are entirely punitive! But it’s a statement of fact that upon having children, most do become a more malleable and frightened follower of social mores. And it’s one thing to enter into this voluntarily, but quite another to be pushed into it.

Author Daniel Quinn had a term: “erratic retaliation”. He posited that unpredictable responses from certain individuals or groups could elicit better behavior, overall. You would have to consider that someone might react in an unpredictable manner to your own overarching behavior. I would term individuals who quit easily over labor abuses to be “erratic retaliators”.

This sort of thing can make an employer more cautious when they consider extending future unreasonable requests on their employees. High unemployment serves in the same manner, as do the chains of student loan debt. Give folks few options and many mouths to feed, and they will not retaliate in any manner.

And I’m speaking, of course, about those who respond in a clean and decisive manner that they will not tolerate abuses — not full-blown psychotic episodes that hurt others, such as going postal. We seem to still have those capacities sadly intact in some of our population. That’s just the flailing out of angst with no redeemable quality behind it.

I would extend that this being termed “a war on women” is not entirely accurate. It’s really a war on the very nature of freedom and the ability to use your life as you see fit — for men and women.

Kathleen Peine

Kathleen Peine: Click image for more articles by Kathleen.

Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security if you lack a uterus. The women will, of course, suffer more in all of this, but make no mistake that this is just another method to own and control those of us they see as nothing but cogs in the enormous machine. And that machine churns out endless growth and gluttony for the few.

As it is with most things, there is a broadness that encompasses and swallows everyone in the interconnectedness — the diminished humanity and loss of freedom will not observe boundaries.

Kathleen Peine
Dissident Voice 


  1. Ratjaws says

    Kathleen, 4-9-2012
    In context of your subject, reproductive freedom, when you say “those beliefs never seemed to be combined with a desire to provide easily accessible birth control or even an acceptance of a sexuality that didn’t result in procreation,” you manifest a misunderstanding of the side you oppose. I agree with you that freedom is something all women AND men should be concerned with but I don’t necessarily agree with you on the definition of freedom. Herein lies your misunderstanding…

    Second you say “They hate us for our freedom” and again you exhibit a crass misunderstanding of our motive. We hate no person! We do hate particular acts that a person can make. Acts that go contrary to what we are.

    Third, you twist the argument of your opposition to become what we in fact claim of your side. Referring to pregnancy you say “forcing that upon the many is a magnificent control method.” In this claim you neglect that fact that it is your side which seeks control, specifically an illegitimate control by giving up legitimate control. More specificially I mean you stealthly relinquish your freedom to refrain from sexual intercourse, which in fact is the only way to become “pretty freaking vulnerable waddling around at 8 ½ months,” while insisting on the “freedom” to prevent conception after the act. In doing so you violate moral law by interfering with the natural consequence of the act of copulation, and worse, when the contraceptive technique fails you risk taking life of an already existing human person. This is in fact what the side you oppose is against and for this you call us “authoritarians,” a title that more aptly describes your side whose insistence on government intervention manifests what I am saying is true.

    You claim “Freedom of any kind is feared” by our side yet it is your side that dispenses with their right-to-choose not to commit the sexual act unless you are willing to accept the consequences of it. You therefore insist our government must support “medical” techniques such as contraception and abortion, neither of which are licit medicine as they are not open to new life nor do they seek to preserve it; and furthermore insist we must pay for these intrusions to the natural function of human persons.

    You claim us “‘anti-government’ types” (keeping in mind here we are also “authoritarians”) invade your “private sexual behavior” when insisting that We The People should not have to support your sexual desires, or more accurately your mistaken desire to inject drugs into your body that interfer with it’s natural function.

    Forth, you mention a “concern for communal well-being” ignoring the fact that to harm another person is not a sign of any type of concern. I invoke here another reason why those who oppose your view reject government sponsored use of contraception and it’s funding. Setting aside the fact that it seeks to thwart the nature of human procreation we find it also has a lesser known side effect which is why the pill has been termed an abortifacient. This quality stems from the fact contraceptive drugs make the uterine lining unsuitable to support a new human life that made it’s way down the falopian tube so that it can implant on this wall. We hate this because a newly conceived person then dies and we simply refuse to fund or in any way cooperate with such illicit acts.

    Fifth, this idea that “the US government was built on a notion of the separation of church and state” in the sense you imply is not only nowhere in our founding documents, but it is contrary to both the founder’s personal practices as well as their original intent for the Constitution. While the founders meant to prevent states from adopting any particular religion formally they did not intend to abolish interaction between the two. This idea you distort simply because you want to disavow yourself of an obligation to traditional moral norms which always sought to protect human life and not manipulate it for one’s own selfish reasons.

    So what this comes down to is two views of morality: the first which sees norms flexible and constantly changing; to be voted on by the people where the majority view prevails; the second a view fixed within the nature of each being and once discovered by the intellect, this nature can be maintained by each individual in their free acts and that freedom for good protected by government for the good of a society. In short we do not have freedom to do evil. Contraceptives (more generally sterilization) and abortion are evils!

    Last you interject into this concern for individual freedom an idea of social justice that makes the government responsible for passing out goods and making sure that everyone has “equal” possession and position. As if this were possible and contrary to such notions your opponents see the individual responsible for what they possess and achieve in life. The government’s job is simply to ensure they are free to attempt so, not that they are assured to achieve. Your side sees all men and women as being equal in what the can do while the other side finds equality in humanness it’s self, and as such, each of us is free despite the fact we all achieve to differing degrees. So those who center their lives around “wealth and power” as you term it, may someday possess it, but those who don’t, who may prefer to possess children and relationships are also free. In fact I suspect the vast majority of people prefer a balance of both and don’t want any government to interfere. Nor would they want government taking from “the rich” giving to “the poor” what they had not worked for. There is something good in achieving for oneself, although we do nothing in this world without the help of others around us (it’s a false notion that sees dependence as bad and independence as good; we are in reality all interdependent… this is the balance between the two).

    So in summation I find your words fitting: “I would extend that this being termed “a war on women” is not entirely accurate. It’s really a war on the very nature of freedom and the ability to use your life as you see fit — for men and women.” Only your side fights for unbridled freedom that changes over time while my side sees clear that human freedom is grounded in their very nature and thereby is fixed. The very fact you have to exhort us who “lack a uterus” to not be taken in by “a false sense of security” means you see we are not all equal in an absolute or unbounded sense. Men an women are physically different. They are also psychologically different which is to imply there is a spiritual difference that cannot be controlled or reshaped by medical technology, nor government policy. This noted women cannot be made into men by sterilization or contraceptive techniques, of which is inherent in your side’s arguments. Nor can men be given a womb and made to act like women, feeding children on their breasts. We are not equal in what we do and society has no business forcing us to conform as if we were. We are all human and as such either male or female, with powers and capabilities that are innately different, and as such we have different responsibilities in life. We can misuse our natural powers and we do so by trying to remake ourselves into that which we are not. Women must accept their feminine nature and men their masculine nature, both of which are intrinsically good. We are meant to cooperate with each other rather than fight. Our natures compliment each other; one does not overshadow the other. We don’t need to redesign ourselves with pills and devices but simply seek to exercise our nature in a way that is in conformity to it’s greatest good, which has to do with the greatest good of the other. Our true freedom is rooted in what we are; freedom is grounded in use of powers sexual as “dictated” by our nature as male or female. To act otherwise is to push away from freedom and to enslave our will to passions and physical acts that not only harm others but detract from our own dignity in the process. You cannot get around any of these truths by lengthy statements to the contrary nor can you wish you true feminine nature away. You can only accept it, exercise those powers inherent in yourself as woman, and benefit by the result… that is take joy in your children (as well as a faithful husband if you are lucky enough to “achieve” one).

  2. Kathleen says

    Note from author:
    This article is addressing an issue larger and more nuanced than the silly regurgitated talking point that stemmed from Rush….. Stop trying to bring the rude “I’m not gonna pay for you to have sex!” nonsense. No furor is heard in regard to Medicare coverage of Viagra, etc. I never hear an uproar over that.  Now that is paying for someone (with tax dollars) to have sex-no doubt! And you know what, I’m okay with that. I’m not in a punitive mood towards men, just hoping for less in the way of double standards.

    But quit trying to force every discussion on reproductive freedom to match that tired talking point about payment. There are bills pending that would allow doctors to withhold information from pregnant women; there are laws pending to tell them that abortion causes breast cancer (not proven) and I could go on and on. This is a much larger issue than “pay for you own birth control, slut”. 

  3. ronwf says

    How does an unwillingness to require ones’ employer to pay for your birth control become an attempt to control your sexuality?  If I refuse to pay for your breakfast am I controlling your appetite?  Or is food less important than sex?  Pay for your own birth control and no one has anything to say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *