Log in

View Full Version : Why free trade means sexual re-enslavement:



wolfgang von skeptik
02-06-2008, 06:34 PM
In the U.S., Any Vote for the Global Economy Is a Vote against Reproductive Choice -- but the Idiots of Moron Nation Are Too Stubbornly Stupid to Acknowledge the Truth

Recognizing reproductive choice (and sexual freedom in general) as a First Amendment issue long before the Supreme Court did likewise, I have always supported legal abortion. This remained true even after the welfare bureacy methodically destroyed my life and, in response, my rage at its unapologetically feminist viciousness drove me temporarily into the conservative camp. Hence some time ago I promised a Washington state advocacy group I would caucus for Edwards and on the group's behalf. But when Edwards was forced out of contention by the Kennedy faction and the green light thus given to the unobstructed advance of Big Business autocracy and the associated tyrannies of theocracy, fascism and imperialism, I withdrew my promise. The group then asked me to explain my reasoning. This was my reply:

With the end of John Edwards’ quest for the Democratic nomination, there are in fact no defenders of reproductive freedom left in contention for the presidency. We are instead offered a pseudo-choice, including (and especially) in the all-important realm of birth control and abortion. On the one hand there is the Republicans' overt, de jure opposition; on the other, there is the Democrats’ clandestine, de facto denial of reproductive rights -- denial imposed by outsourcing, downsizing and the sundry other economic savageries inflicted in the name of "free trade" and the Global (sweatshop) Economy.

To elaborate for the benefit of those stubbornly oblivious to class-struggle and economic reality, reproductive freedom in the United States is determined exclusively by one's access to health care. But the U.S. is unique in the industrial world in that it grants such access only to those whose profitability and wealth (presumably) prove them worthy of such favorable treatment. Thus a vast and growing number of people are methodically deprived of any and all forms of health care, including any and all of the associated reproductive freedoms -- note for example both the huge, outsourced/downsized increase in women denied health insurance and the resultant skyrocketing birthrate.

Ironically, the worst of this onslaught of job-loss, health-insurance termination and theft of reproductive choice has been inflicted on us by the Democrats. The Clinton Administration quite knowingly did this during the 1990s via WTO, NAFTA, GATT and its many economically toxic counterparts. Since then, the DemoPublican coalitions of the Bush years -- typified by the additional millions of jobs stolen by CAFTA -- have not only maintained the trend toward economic prohibition of reproductive freedom but have radically accelerated it. Today all the available evidence indicates both the Obamacrats and the Hillerycrats intend to continue the headlong drive toward the permanent subjugation-by-impoverishment of the entire U.S. working class. Which means that -- regardless of who is elected in November -- there is absolutely no rational hope for relief from the ongoing policy of using economic oppression to re-impose sexual servitude on the vast majority of the nation’s women.

Moreover the Democrats' long history of say-one-thing/do-the-opposite hostility to reproductive freedom is far older than the Clinton presidency. In fact, this colossal act of electoral fraud dates to 1977, when only weeks after his inauguration, President Carter viciously betrayed his pro-choice supporters by forever banning all federal funded abortions. Thus the Democratic Party triumphantly revealed its hitherto-best-kept secret: that beneath its camouflage of lies, it was no different from the GOP in its implicit endorsement of misogyny and the ultimate ruling class goal -- essential to guarantee capitalism’s long-term survival -- of replacing constitutional government with Christian theocracy. Indeed, no Republican has ever struck reproductive freedom such a crippling blow -- and every administration since Carter’s has in one way or another expanded the ban into all other realms of birth control.

Given these facts, it is long past time for supporters of reproductive choice to acknowledge five ugly truths: (1)-that on this issue as on most others (and despite the Big Lie of fraudulent rhetoric), there is no ultimate difference between the Democrats and the Republicans; (2)-that precisely because the economic exploitation of U.S. workers will continue unabated no matter which party wins in November, the working-class will be increasingly denied access to health care and thus further stripped of reproductive freedom; (3)-that unless one is in the topmost 20 percent that owns 91 percent of the national wealth and thus controls the entire apparatus of governance, we are ALL working class; (4)-that whether reproductive choice is legal or not, members of the topmost 20 percent, that is the ruling class, will always have the money to obtain safe and successful abortion, which ensures their indifference to the issue itself -- save of course in terms of its usefulness as propaganda of deception or an economic mechanism for increasing the fears by which workers are ever more oppressed; (5)-that to pretend otherwise is to reduce one's self to nothing more than a cringing accessory to the ultimate Big Lie of U.S. electoral freedom.

I will no longer lend my personal validation to any such deliberately injurious falsehood. I will not caucus again until I am offered the choice of a party and candidates who genuinely represent the working class and who will therefore not betray us to the increasingly ruthless corporate plutocracy -- as every Democrat from Johnson onward has already betrayed us. For the first time since I was old enough to vote, I may even decline to participate in the entire electoral scam. To cast a vote so definitely robbed of meaning is an act of surrender to the robbers themselves.


Loren Bliss
6 February 2008

Kid of the Black Hole
02-06-2008, 09:05 PM
Actually, I kinda sorta disagree Wolf. I mean, not really, but think about this. Most liberals slavishly remind us that "Its SCOTUS stupid" and the all too clear implication is that they are most concerned with protecting Roe.

As in, they aren't that concerned with the fact that Kansas has one abortion clinic. As in, they aren't too concerned if abortions are federal funded or not. As in, they want to make sure THEY have access to abortions which is exactly equivalent (to them) of upholding Roe.

And of course thats not all they get out of it -- they also get conflagrations with the Religious Right that are -- mostly -- "safe". Someone shoots an abortion doctor every so often, sure, but for the most part they can rant and rave about the crazy fundies to their heart's content. So its no risk, gets the adrenaline flowing, and makes them feel like superior and enlightened beings in the process. Win, win, win.

Sure they coat it with a flimsy "women's right" veneer, but do they really mean that? They don't seem to give a shit about a woman's right (other than their own) in any of a number of other situations -- not the least of which is a woman's right to not live in abject poverty.

wolfgang von skeptik
02-07-2008, 01:49 AM
KotBH wrote:


They don't seem to give a shit about a woman's right (other than their own) in any of a number of other situations -- not the least of which is a woman's right to not live in abject poverty.

My point precisely: it's not about women's rights; it's about the rights of the ruling class and their bourgeoisie factoti. Hence -- though a vote for NAFTA or CAFTA is a vote against working women's access to reproductive freedom -- Omama and Obama can each still Big Lie that they're for "a woman's right to choose" because the only women they recognize as fully female (or even fully human) are their own privileged kind.

(Wait: is the plural of factotum really factoti? Or is it fact-toadies?)

Kid of the Black Hole
02-07-2008, 02:35 AM
(Wait: is the plural of factotum really factoti? Or is it fact-toadies?)

Who the fac knows..

(sorry, that's bad)

wolfgang von skeptik
02-07-2008, 06:01 AM
I'm a helluva lot less concerned about SCOTUS than I am about SCROTUS: Scheming Capitalists Ripping Off The United States -- the very people who have us by the balls.

Kid of the Black Hole
02-07-2008, 01:53 PM
I'm a helluva lot less concerned about SCOTUS than I am about SCROTUS: Scheming Capitalists Ripping Off The United States -- the very people who have us by the balls.

Do you lay awake at night dreaming this stuff up ;)?

meganmonkey
02-07-2008, 03:33 PM
I'm a helluva lot less concerned about SCOTUS than I am about SCROTUS: Scheming Capitalists Ripping Off The United States -- the very people who have us by the balls.

LOL, I'm sitting here thinking of all the ways I could be a good liberal woman right now in response to your 'by the balls' comment here and your essay above. Ream you for your gender insensitivity and how-can-you-possibly-understand-you-don't-have-ovaries-or-a-uterus!! And I don't have balls! I DON'T HAVE BALLS!!! WHERE DO I FIT IN YOUR EQUATION, HUH?
:P

But alas, you won't get any of that from me.

Medical decisions shouldn't be legislated. Period. As you indicate, this is a basic civil rights/human rights issue. This is no more important than any other civil rights issue. It's only real gravity comes from those who seek to manipulate the electorate with wedge issues. The very fact that we have to fear the SCOTUS as far as reproductive rights indicates that the problem is much, much deeper than this. As you say, the much bigger issue is the overall lack of access to any medical care among a large portion of the populace - including those who have so-called health insurance and still can't get the care they need. And even this problem is just one symptom of the disease of the SCROTUS (love it!).

Divide and conquer works like a charm, doesn't it?

(Yeah, I'm a traitor to my gender. I've heard that one before.)

wolfgang von skeptik
02-07-2008, 06:17 PM
But it was early in the morning, I was exhausted from 14 hours of writing and in too zomboid a state to find a way around it. Hence I opted for the SCROTUS/balls connection despite its sexism -- as always, aesthetics over political correctness. Now however you have (implicitly) suggested a semantic solution:

Amongst the cops whose efforts against crime I covered c. 1979-1981, "scrote" (like "puke," "scumbag," "dirtbag" etc.), was a synonym for felon. And in cop usage, "scrote" was ungendered, applying equally to bad guys male and female.

Since in SCROTUS the scrotes are the oppressors -- and since they oppress us whether we are male or female -- my descriptive phrase should have been "Scheming Capitalists Ripping Off The United States -- the very people who have us by the short hairs." Which of course makes SCROTUS equally useful to all genders.

Thank you, Megan; as always your criticism is both apt and productive.