Mehdi Hasan’s article on how being pro-life doesn’t make him “any less of a lefty” precipitated a predictable explosion of rage all over the Sunday internet.
Honestly, guys, this is the third weekend in a row where I’ve woken to find that some privileged bloke is explaining how it’s his personal view that we need to abolish universal suffrage or similar. I fear I am a member of the monstrous regiment of women who persist in viewing the pontifications of those who “never felt the wound”, in the words of Romeo, with something of a fishlike eye.
It’s getting to the stage that I’m afraid to get into the shower on a Sunday, lest Jeremy Hunt pops up and slaps a nationalisation order on my lady-parts.
Where to begin with his article is a tricky one as it is just so wrong that it’s almost tempting to see it as trolling. Not least because of his denial that his life experiences have nothing to do with his conclusions on abortion is intellectually disingenuous. It would be like me saying that my view on the merits of woman’s right to choose has nothing to do with me being a woman, and that I would feel the same if I were a man. I obviously cannot make this call because my views are inextricably bound with the fact that I am female, do have periods, will probably get pregnant at some stage, and I assume that all these things do influence the way I feel about people trying to legislate on how, when and if I give birth.
If I had wedding vegetables instead, my approach to offspring-production would be completely different. I have no idea how I would feel, and to claim that otherwise, as if I were Moses descending from Mount Sinai bestowing some sort of divinely inspired moral code on a grateful nation would make me, frankly, a bit of a nobber.
We’re all a confused mash of prejudices influenced by our experiences, tempered occasionally by empathy and education. And this is true even of New Statesman columnists.
But, dear reader, it is not the subject of abortion on which I plan to assail you with my ramblings today. It is, instead, the term 'lefty' and how Hasan’s article magnificently demonstrates that terms such as 'right wing' and 'left wing' currently mean bugger-all, if they ever did.
I loathe the terms 'lefty”' and 'progressive' for the reason that Hasan is probably right, according to his own definitions, as to what these have come to mean. I would consider myself left wing: I have reasonably conservative economic views, but socially I’m pretty liberal. This is, however, tempered by a solidly-socialist love for banning things; sometimes I lie in bed at night and dream of all the things I’ll ban when I become Commander in Chief of the Entire World. Happy times. Anyway, aside from the latter point, however, this does not make me markedly different from most of my Conservative friends, who would self-identify as right-wing.
'Lefty' means what, exactly, then? Darth Vader could, by Hasan’s definition, be a 'progressive' on the grounds that he was a trailblazer for disability rights in the early days of the galactic empire. Lucretia Borgia: an early-day 'lefty' as a powerful woman in Renaissance Italy?
Essentially, 'lefty' when used by those who consider themselves right-on, is code for, 'I am a nice person who likes nice things like unicorns, rainbows, and the smiles on little children’s faces.' That’s what Hasan was basically saying: 'I may be out of step with the moderate orthodoxy on this one, but I am still on the right side of the Force and therefore my arguments have greater weight than right-wing commentators because I am a better person.'
The predictable response to Mehdi was neither 'smearing' nor 'demonising' him. Wading into a debate on a hugely emotive issue and assuming that you have a carte blanche to say whatever you like unchallenged because you consider yourself a good person (or 'lefty') is completely and utterly ridiculous. As an incubator ... sorry 'woman', myself, does Hasan really think he can get away with 'Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body – but a baby isn’t part of her body' and not receive a load of tweets saying, 'Um, really dude? Like, really?'
Malleable adjectives such as 'lefty' add no weight to the merits or lack thereof of anyone’s argument, nor do they act as any form of protection upon chatting out of your downstairs set of cheeks, and being called on it.
Comments
Ricardo / October 15 2012 3:54pm
Did you actually read Mehdi's blog?
If so, maybe you skated over the bit that went:
... 49 per cent of women, compared to 24 per cent of men, support a reduction in the abortion limit, according to a YouGov poll conducted this year. “Polls consistently show . . . that women are more likely than men to support a reduction,” says You - Gov’s Anthony Wells.
This isn't therefore an argument between those who (as you put it) have "wedding vegetables" and those who have periods. So why keep pretending it is?
Sadie Smith / October 15 2012 5:14pm
Did you actually read mine? Of all the crappy internet memes perpetrated by online fanboys, the "Did you actually read [X's] article."
Hi there! I have 2008 on the phone and it wants its Standardised Patronising Cliche back. Yeesh.
Of course I read Mehdi's blog. I am also confused as to what in the name of Satan's sandpapered balls a YouGov poll has to do with any of the arguments I made in the above piece. Plenty of women were against having the vote too. Shall we reverse universal suffrage too?
Actually, don't answer that. I've a horrid feeling I know what your response will be.
Ricardo / October 15 2012 5:50pm
Plenty of women were against having the vote too.
Maybe. But not a higher proportion of women than of men, as in the YouGov poll on abortion law reform. Counter-intuitive? Unexpected? Striking?
what in the name of Satan's sandpapered balls a YouGov poll has to do with any of the arguments I made in the above piece..?
Well, it shows that the rather platitudinous line you're peddling about this all being about the Sisterhood vs the Patriarchy is completely out of line with reality.
Sadie Smith / October 15 2012 6:51pm
Did you actually read the my article?
[See what I did there?]
The article was about how the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are meaningless with respect to a good number of policy debates and issues. Actually, Norman Geras says it better than I do here: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/10/left-at-the-door.html
"The sisterhood vs the patriarchy" was not something I peddled: merely that people's experiences of their existence influence how they approach policy debates and issues. You obviously missed this in your haste to project your views on abortion, baybee-moider, and prejudices against the "sisterhood" - which is really *not* what this article is about - onto my argument. A similar thing happens when you ask Bill Cash MP whether he fancies some camembert and are, as a consequence, treated to a forty minute declamation on the terror that is Europe which must be pretty baffling for House of Commons cheese waiters.
Since you persist in wanting to thrash out the relative merits of a 12-week limit, I make the following points. First, YouGov and modern opinion polling didn't exist, as far as I'm aware, in the early part of the c19th so I am unclear as to how you managed to come to the conclusion that "more" women wanted the vote than want to keep the term limits as they are. But do please feel free to jump in if you have any psephological evidence to the contrary on this specific point.
Second, then, as now in voting and abortion, there's a simple solution. If you don't want to vote: don't. If you do: do. Similarly if you don't want an abortion (and although I've learned in life to never say never, but I'm reasonably certain that in most circumstances it's not something I would do): don't have one.
Finally, if you honestly think there is *no* difference between the brethren with purple headed yoghurt throwers and those of us with lady-gardens then, quite clearly, it's been a while.
Don't worry, I've just emerged from something of a dry patch myself.
Ben / October 16 2012 10:37pm
Hm, respectfully, I disagree.
To me, there is a legitimate purpose in mentioning that he is otherwise in alignment with other progressive values. When you hear that a conservative is pro-life, you, as a Liberal, are relatively quick to dismiss the person because their entire political paradigm is not in line with your's and their conclusions on abortion are likewise built on views that you have already rejected on a meta level.
What Hasan is saying is that he agrees with you on a fundamental level about how government should work, and based on the values that you have in common he opposed abortion. He's saying that perhaps you should consider that there is a progressive argument that supports the pro-life stance, so you shouldn't dismiss his view out of hand because you both believe in the same political ethic.
Ian Stewart / October 19 2012 11:40pm
I think that you can be left wing and "pro life". I'm not, but there you go. There is no need to change the existing status quo as far as I can see. Only a realisation by those who are "pro life" that nobody will force them to have an abortion.
As the late Bill Hicks put it: "If you're Anti Abortion, don't have one".