More on Why I am Angry About Grand Theft Auto IV

Though I have made an unofficial rule not to respond to commenters who lodge personal attacks against me, Lost Turntable makes some reasonable arguments. Of course, that does not mean that I agree, but these are criticisms that I anticipated. I was going to just post this as a response in the comments section, but since it is so long and I spent so much time thinking it all out, I am going to post it here along with the original comment. I also hope to generate a larger dialogue.

The Lost Turntable's original comment:

I really wish people would do a little research before criticizing this game, especially since if there is plenty to criticize if they just did a bit of damn research.

First of all, stop calling it a 'game' in quotations. You not liking its subject matter doesn't make it any less of a game. I don't call a movie I hate a 'movie.' It does make you look like a pretentious jerk though.

Now to address your other points one by one:

1. I am angry because this 'game' romanticizes, decontextualizes and glorifies male violence against women and against other men.

Well, at least you mentioned that it has violence against men too.

I think playing up the violence against women aspect is a cheap shot. It romanticizes violence...period. Women are rarely singled out as targets in this game and never because they are women.

2. It portrays women as the sex class (willing and available) and men as autonomous agents with full subjectivity (as long as they are hegemonicly masculine).

This is partially on target. But while women are portrayed in an overly sexual manner, the men are portrayed as overly violent. If you are arguing that the game only views women as women if they are engaging in submissive sex acts, then you must also say that the game says a man must be violent in order to be a real man. Neither are good.

2. I am scared to live in a culture where this is considered a viable form of entertainment.

Don't know what to tell you there. There's worse than GTA out there, sorry to burst your bubble.

3. The protagonist of Grand Theft Auto IV, Niko Bellic, fucks women, seemingly all prostituted women, and then brutally murders them immediately afterward if he so desires.

Enough with the killing prostitutes shtick. Yes, you can have sex with hookers in GTA. You can also murder anyone on the street. Ergo, you can kill hookers. Reading any more into it is kind of silly. Also, whenever you do have sex with a hooker Niko immediately says to himself what a disgusting, worthless scumbag he is. It's not a rewarding experience.

Furthermore, Niko Belic actually goes on several dates in the game, and often they do not end in sex. He never forces himself on anyone and the sex with these women is always consensual. Conversely, if the gamer treats the women like shit they stop talking to you. Saying that Niko only has sex with prostitutes is wrong.

4. Young men all over the country (and beyond) will learn that the value of women is their capacity to provide male orgasm.

Any guy who plays this game and comes to that conclusion is already fucked in the head. If anyone sees the hookers and strippers in GTAIV and is then enticed to pursue them in real life, they're going to be in a for a real letdown when they discover just how gross, sickening and depressing both those worlds usually are. The idea that young men will take away any ideas like this from this game is an insult to the intelligence of the human race.

5. I am angry that abuses of women are not taken seriously; are not seen as major social problems. In this culture of domination the murder of a prostituted/raped woman cannot be taken too seriously. Yet in video game culture it is not seen as a problem. Stamp an "M for Mature" rating on it and move on.

Wow...um...wow. Get a grip. Yes, violence against women (or anyone for that matter) is wrong and should be taken seriously. But the idea that this game encourages it or even dismisses violence against women in the real world is about as accurate as saying that it will cause an increase in violence against pigeons (a sidequest in the game is to shoot pigeons, much like a scavenger hunt).

6. It seems worth examining the otherness of Bellic here as well. Admittedly, I am no expert in gaming or gaming culture, I have only played a few in my life and have never been amused by their seeming androcentrism, exclusivity and extraordinary violence...Bellic is depicted as 'foreign' and/or not white. It enables white American men to play the game and distance themselves from the extraordinary violence that they are enacting upon women and other men. "Oh American men do not murder, rape or pay for sex!"

Okay, nearly everything you say here is flat out wrong, and there's so much misinformation and all-out insanity here I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, not all games feature "androcentrism, exclusivity and extraordinary violence." Pick up a game of Sonic The Hedgehog, or better yet the genius Portal (which features a strong, intelligent female protagonist) to see the error in that statement.

As far as the "otherness" of Belic, it's only an issue in that both his past and the fact that he is not familar with America are major story points. The past three GTA games have featured American protagonists who were all just as violent as Niko, and Tommy Vercetti, the main character of GTA: Vice City was more violent, misanthropic and just plain morally repugnant than Niko ever could be. Niko's actually a fairly complex character.

Your argument that the game uses foreign "otherness" as an excuse for violent acts is without base and unequivocally wrong. Like it or not, there's nothing Niko does in this game that is worse than anything the American characters in previous games have done in the past.

It's amazingly obvious that your knowledge of this game, and gaming in general is based almost entirely on what others have told/shown you. Because throughout your poorly written diatribe holier-than-though manifesto you fail to mention the biggest point about the GTA series, which is that they are all broad satires, poking fun at everything from our country's fascination with gangland culture, reality TV and even the music industry. If you took the time out to play the game you might find out that there is some pretty bold pro-feminist commentary in it. For example, there's a radio commercial in GTAIV for a reality show called "America's Next Top Hooker" which brilliantly lambastes our culture's obsession with reality television in a way that also exposes the outright sexism that seems to run rampant in it.

All that being said, there is plenty to dislike about GTAIV. I am uncomfortable with some of the racial stereotypes in the game, and the fact that all the game's homosexual characters seem to be out of a 1970s sitcom also bothers me. However, I am also aware that it is a game. And I don't worry that anyone playing the game will walk away from it more racist or homophobic than they already were. They might actually laugh, see the ridiculousness of the game's stereotypes and walk away from it less prejudiced than they were before. I do hope that in future installments the game continues their critique of cultural stereotypes by turning it on its head (i.e. having a macho gay gangbanger or a female gang leader who takes advantage of her men).

Finally, know that unless you actually sit down and play the game, most gaming fans will refuse to take you seriously.

And rightfully so.


My response:

1. I refer to GTA as a ‘game’ in quotation marks not because I think that it does not possess the inherent qualities of a video game by our cultural definition of that concept but because I am displeased that such a violent, misogynistic activity is considered to be a viable mode of entertainment!
2. I made sure to mention, more than once, that I am not an avid gamer. In fact, I have never actually played GTA IV, though I have played earlier versions.
3. The difference between men and women in a white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist, patriarchy (that you do not seem to see) is that women are valued only for their sex, as the sex class. This makes violence against us more insidious. In the real world women are raped, beaten, assaulted, etc. DAILY. Put in this context, portrayals of violence against women by men is not just a coincidence or accident; it maintains patriarchal domination by convincing men and women that it is normal and inevitable.
4. I think we are wholly in agreement that hegemonic masculinity and its hyper violence and limited options are not good for men or women.
5. I would NEVER argue that GTA is the worst form of violence against women “out there” but that doesn’t make it any less problematic. Isn’t that the whole point of cultural criticism? I am not trying to pick out the worst representation of gender in ALL of mass media but rather to present a rich tapestry of similarities of those myriad representations and their complex relationships with one another.
6. “Enough with the killing prostitutes shtick. Yes, you can have sex with hookers in GTA. You can also murder anyone on the street. Ergo, you can kill hookers. Reading any more into it is kind of silly.”
Again, isn’t that the whole point of cultural criticism? Yes, you can kill prostitutes and I think that that is a huge problem. And it isn’t just me. Murder, assault and violence against women are very serious social problems. I cannot even keep track of the numbers but according to RAINN, nearly 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes (the number is no where near that for men). I don’t feel the need to go into the whole significance of cultural context and gender terrorism again. Please, read this post.
Assault and violence against prostituted women is also rampant in the real world. Normalizing it by turning it into entertainment can only add to this problem.
7. If it is true that Bellic does not exclusively have sex with prostituted women, then I gladly retract that statement.
8. “Wow...um...wow. Get a grip. Yes, violence against women (or anyone for that matter) is wrong and should be taken seriously. But the idea that this game encourages it or even dismisses violence against women in the real world is about as accurate as saying that it will cause an increase in violence against pigeons (a sidequest in the game is to shoot pigeons, much like a scavenger hunt).”
Again, I am not saying that GTA is the cause of all social ills, only that it contributes to them by normalizing the propping up of one category of human at the expense of another (and, apparently, animals). Also, I would argue that not enough people take this violence seriously enough and that is why it is such a social ill and not taking it seriously maintains patriarchal rule by making it appear natural and unchangeable.
9. “First of all, not all games feature ‘androcentrism, exclusivity and extraordinary violence.’ Pick up a game of Sonic The Hedgehog, or better yet the genius Portal (which features a strong, intelligent female protagonist) to see the error in that statement.”
I never said “all games,” only the ones I have played.
10. “The past three GTA games have featured American protagonists who were all just as violent as Niko…Like it or not, there's nothing Niko does in this game that is worse than anything the American characters in previous games have done in the past.”
This only serves to prove my point further. That Bellic is depicted as a non-white man at this particular time in American history when immigration is such a particular issue, especially considering that the other protagonists have been white, seems even less coincidental.
11. “You fail to mention the biggest point about the GTA series, which is that they are all broad satires, poking fun at everything from our country's fascination with gangland culture, reality TV and even the music industry.” I sure hope that all of the teenage boys (and girls) playing this game are hip to the oh-so clever satire of GTA. Though in my experience (which, as a high school teacher, is plenty) this is not the case.
12. “I don't worry that anyone playing the game will walk away from it more racist or homophobic than they already were. They might actually laugh, see the ridiculousness of the game's stereotypes and walk away from it less prejudiced than they were before. I do hope that in future installments the game continues their critique of cultural stereotypes by turning it on its head (i.e. having a macho gay gangbanger or a female gang leader who takes advantage of her men).”
Again, I will concede that I have not played the game and do not know the subtleties. I am always glad to hear about characters that defy stereotype and characterization. I am just concerned that such a sophisticated understanding is beyond a significant portion of the players of this particular game. And again, I understand that I can only speak from my experience.

"What Do You Call Them?"

Does anyone else think that this Playtex ad campaign is more than a little creepy?

I am particularly unamused by the videos entitled "What do you call them?" I knew it couldn't be long before corporate America reappropriated the feminist rhetoric of The Vagina Monologues, turning it into the same old sexist bullshit, to sell bras to women.

Particularly irritating are these:
"Husband Pleasers." (As if breasts exist solely for the pleasure of men, not for the women or their offspring.)
"Money Makers." (Because women have been taught throughout history that the only way for them to make it in patriarchal economic systems are through their subjugated and sale-able sexuality.)
"Puppies." (Because women are constantly dehumanized by being relegated to status of animals. And we all know how animals are treated in this country.)
"I've been asked to shake the money makers on the subway a few times." (Trivializing the terrorism that is street harassment. I have heard too many stories at the Holla Back Chicago site to think that this is cute. The most recent contribution "I Never Feel Safe" is especially telling.)

I Am Angry About Grand Theft Auto IV

I am angry.

I am angry about a 'game' called Grand Theft Auto IV. I am angry because this 'game' romanticizes, decontextualizes and glorifies male violence against women and against other men. It portrays women as the sex class (willing and available) and men as autonomous agents with full subjectivity (as long as they are hegemonicly masculine). I am angry because this is the result of living in a patriarchal, ethnocentric, xenophobic, homophobic and, yes I'll say it, woman hating culture. I cannot understand this 'game' as anything other than that.

I am scared to live in a culture where this is considered a viable form of entertainment. The protagonist of Grand Theft Auto IV, Niko Bellic, fucks women, seemingly all prostituted women, and then brutally murders them immediately afterward if he so desires. Bear in mind, of course, that 'he' is controlled by the player. Young men all over the country (and beyond) will learn that the value of women is their capacity to provide male orgasm. That is all.

I am angry that abuses of women are not taken seriously; are not seen as major social problems. In this culture of domination the murder of a prostituted/raped woman cannot be taken too seriously. Yet in video game culture it is not seen as a problem. Stamp an "M for Mature" rating on it and move on.

It seems worth examining the otherness of Bellic here as well. Admittedly, I am no expert in gaming or gaming culture, I have only played a few in my life and have never been amused by their seeming androcentrism, exclusivity and extraordinary violence. Bellic is a Bosnian immigrant in search of "The American Dream." I think it is relevant that in a game produced and developed by plenty of white men, Bellic is depicted as 'foreign' and/or not white. It enables white American men to play the game and distance themselves from the extraordinary violence that they are enacting upon women and other men. "Oh American men do not murder, rape or pay for sex!"

In a time when immigration is such a heated issue, Grand Theft Auto IV must be placed within its proper cultural context. It is not an accident that Bellic is a violent, over sexed, thuggish immigrant.

I am Disappointed with Stephen Colbert

Today I am going to wag my finger at Stephen Colbert. Hell, I might even put him on notice.
I love The Colbert Report. I do. It is hilarious and sometimes subversive. It is a wonderful political satire with a progressive edge. But as I have mentioned before, these progressive television personalities are often blinded to their own male privilege. On the April 16th episode, Colbert had the Philadelphia Eagle's Cheerleaders dancing around his stage while he oogled them. Now I understand that his show is a satire but I have to say, I don't see anything funny about women being treated like objects. Especially in light of this post from Shakesville.

Institutionalized Racism and My Very Favorite Show

Image Via

As I have probably mentioned before and almost certainly will mention again, sometimes being a feminist cultural critic means recognizing the sexism/racism/classism/agism/ethnocentrism/etc in the things that you love. I guess I couldn't do what I do if I didn't love popular culture as much as I sometimes hate it.

The X-Files has been my favorite show since I was in seventh grade. I was a devoted fan right until then end. Every so often I have a renaissance and I spend a few weeks re-watching them all. I love the show so much that I have never really been critical of it because it is my private guilty pleasure. I watch it when I am sad or lonely or sick or just procrastinating and I don't want any pesky analysis to get in the way of that pleasure.

All of that being said, I have noticed something very upsetting about the portrayal of non-white people on the show. First of all, most of the characters and certainly all of the main characters are white. When we do see non-white people they are almost always men and they are almost always perpetrators of violence. Most disturbing though is the eerie pan flute music that always seems to be playing when non-white people are on the screen. It is most obvious in episodes about Native Americans but is very clear (at least in the first few seasons) every time a black man is the perpetrator. What is most disturbing about this is that in the episodes "Fearful Symmetry" and "Shapes" (and others I am sure) the same music is played when wild animals, especially dangerous ones like cougars and wolves (or werewolves), are on screen.

Now I am no ethnomusicologist (maybe someday...) but the racism implicit in this portrayal is palatable. This is pretty much the definition of institutionalized racism and dehumanization. It isn't immediately obvious and many media consumers wouldn't think twice about this very clear correlation because it isn't as obvious as a "coloreds only" sign. But it is just as dangerous, if not more so, because it doesn't evoke the passionate response that overt racism does.

Also, OMFG!, in the process of researching this I discovered that an additional X-Files film is in production. I am so there on opening day!

Phone Sex

My roommate and I have the same cell phone. We also have the same problem concentrating on our homework.....

I Have No Words.....

Dehumanization? Via Gizmodo.

Suggestions?

Sorry for the lack of updates lately. I am just getting started on my finals. Graduate school does not leave a lot of time for writing about popular culture here! However, I do get to do just that in my research which is why I am so completely in love with school.

On that note I am wondering if you all can help me with one of my research papers. I am interested in looking at representations of transnational bodies in American mass media. I have written about Gwen Stefani and her Harajuku Girls before but I think it is very relevant to this research. I am curious as to who else you all think might be relevant. I plan to peruse the archives of Racialicious to see what they have written about but I thought I'd open it to my dear readers (like feminist gal and kat) since they have been so helpful in the past!

If the project is a success, I'll post high lights here.

"I'm already pregnant so what other kind of shenanigans can I get into?"

Image Via

I finally saw Juno. I think I am the last feminist alive to see it but I am not a big movie goer. Not really in the mood to go into an analysis of it but I enjoyed it a whole lot. If not for the atrocious indie-gross sound track I'd even go so far as to say I love it. By the end I felt like I was going to puke if I heard one more f-ing mopey guitar riff.

Maybe I'll write more later but for now I'll just say that I LOVE any movie about teenage pregnancy that does not make the young woman look like a victim. Yay!

"You're Fat and You Need to Ride Your Bike"

Somebody sent me a link to this video at my HollaBack Chicago site. WTF?

Is Feminism Colonialism?

When I would discuss feminist issues, my ex would occasionally argue that feminism is no different than colonialism. He would compare me to a missionary going into another country to spread Christianity. The same comparison works for other types of colonialism as well. Though I quite fervently disagreed with him, my globalization, transnationalism and gender course has caused me to rethink my position.

The authors that we discussed in class tonight argued that liberal and radical feminisms (or, arguably, 'first wave' and 'second wave' feminisms) were exclusive and dogmatic. They often represented 'women' as a homogenous category in order to lobby for change either within the system or outside of it. The post-structural and post-colonial/third world feminist critique of these feminisms is that they really only benefit middle to upper class white women in the United States and parts of Europe. Making feminism into an exclusive club limits the voices that we hear and the progressive change that we can affect. And of course, it made feminism irrelevant for so many women!

I have long considered myself to be a post-structural/post-modern/quasi-socialist feminist with Marxist leanings (take that!!). But I am starting to wonder whether all feminisms by their very nature as political movements aren't just additional forms of colonialism. If we give feminism a certain set definition and we hold on to some utopian vision, whatever that might be, then we must believe that our ideology is superior to others and our goal must be to sway all people to our position. Why spend so much time reading, writing and re-writing theory if this were not true?

When I write for this blog I am trying to convince anyone who will listen that there is something wrong with American media; that portrayals of gender in media are hurting people and that feminist analysis can help. And I do firmly believe that. Of course, as a post-structuralist I believe that there are many layers of meaning embedded in every image and that interpretations of images and their effects are wide and varied. Still I wonder if my strong ideological stance as a feminist does not mirror the ideologies of the Christian missionaries or the European colonists. In fact, I think that the argument could be made that feminism isn't all that different from some religion only it is less centralized and much less organized.

This thought is really frightening to me because I have been recovering from Catholicism since I was sixteen and I certainly don't want to utilize similar techniques for disseminating knowledge that I believe to be enlightening. But I wouldn't be a feminist if I didn't think that feminism could or would improve the lives of anyone who embraced it.

One of my classmates suggested that we just need to remember to check ourselves. That if we never settle into a comfortable ideological position and constantly challenge our own beliefs we can avert some of those tendencies. She also suggested that we need to remember to see ourselves as part of the system for better or for worse. Imagining ourselves as transcendent is the epitome of modernity.

I am not sure I have any answers to offer here. Tonight my feminism experienced a major challenge. I guess that is a good thing.

How Privileged Am I?

Got this survey from Racialicious. They do a pretty good analysis of the problems with this survey but I found it interesting anyway. Anything in green is a true statement for me.

If your father went to college
If your father finished college
If your mother went to college
If your mother finished college
If you have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor (All of the above actually)
If you were the same or higher class than your high school teachers (Exact same)
If you had a computer at home
If you had your own computer at home (When I was in college)
If you had more than 50 books at home
If you had more than 500 books at home (I probably do now... or will by the time I get my degree)
If were read children’s books by a parent
If you ever had lessons of any kind
If you had more than two kinds of lessons
If the people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
If you had a credit card with your name on it
If you have less than $5000 in student loans (way, way, way, way more)
If you have no student loans (HA!)
If you went to a private high school (elementary school)
If you went to summer camp
If you had a private tutor
If you have been to Europe
If your family vacations involved staying at hotels
If all of your clothing has been new and bought at the mall (My mom was thrifty)
If your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them (HA!)
If there was original art in your house
If you had a phone in your room (Do cell phones count?)
If you lived in a single family house
If your parents own their own house or apartment
If you had your own room (I have been very lucky to always have my own room)
If you participated in an SAT/ACT prep course (Probably should have)
If you had your own cell phone in High School (Just senior year)
If you had your own TV in your room in High School
If you opened a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
If you have ever flown anywhere on a commercial airline (Never! Really!)
If you ever went on a cruise with your family
If your parents took you to museums and art galleries
If you were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family

She Wants Revenge...or.... He Wants Revenge?

One thing I have not talked a lot about on this blog is music (besides Britney Spears, of course). That is in part because I love my music so much and because listening to it is such a personal and intimate experience that it is difficult to be critical of it.

Image Via

That being said, I have discovered a new band that I am really, really enjoying. She Wants Revenge is electronic, darkwave, whatever (I am not big on categorizing music) but I just love it. I have watched the video for "Tear You Apart" quite a few times to try to figure out just what is happening. While I am still puzzled, all I know is that this video creeps me out. The suggestions of sexual assault and transphobia are palpable.

I wasn't sure quite how I felt about it until I listened closer to the lyrics and read this Dig Magazine article in which band member, Bravin, said: "I don't think there are a lot of bands out there right now that are men speaking to women."

According to SWR in the lyrics for "Tear You Apart" this is what men want to say to women:

Either way he wanted her and this was bad
He wanted to do things to her it was making him crazy
Now a little crush turned into a like
And now he wants to grab her by the hair and tell her

I want to hold you close
Skin pressed against me tight
Lie still, and close your eyes girl
So lovely, it feels so right

I want to hold you close
Soft breasts, beating heart
As I whisper in your ear
I want to f*cking tear you apart


Now if that does not sound rape-y I don't know what does. Woman hatred is all over popular and even underground/indie music. Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it is in your face. This is a bit more subtle until you really pay attention to the lyrics and what the band members say that those lyrics mean to them.

This is another of those situations where, as a feminist, I need to take pause and acknowledge the misogyny in my music but then do I stop listening to it? I am not that much of a martyr. I love this music and I still want to listen to it. Sometimes I believe that media consciousness is a huge first step. We don't have to give up the media we love so long as we learn to be critical of it and not just passive absorbers of it. How do we enact progressive change in this situation?

Getting to Know Your Feminist Blogger: Blogging for Choice

I know it is a little bit late but here is my contribution!

In so many of my Women's Studies courses throughout the years I have been asked to write about the formation of my feminism. I will share that story here because it has so much to do with why I vote pro-choice.

My feminism evolved out of my realization that pregnancy should not be compulsory. I attended Catholic school from kindergarten through eighth grade. With no knowledge to the contrary, I assumed that all people were Catholic. Upon entering a public high school, my entire world changed. I met people who practiced a variety of religions and even a few who had no religion. When I encountered my future best friend for the first time, she told me that she was outraged by the continuing struggle for reproductive rights. When she told me what an abortion was, I had a light bulb moment. Being Catholic, sex had always seemed scary and dangerous to me, I knew that it was related to pregnancy and I certainly did not want to be pregnant! Once I realized that pregnancy is not an inevitable part of heterosexual activity, I felt enormously liberated. That is until I realized how abortion and other reproductive rights are consistently in danger. That is when I started advocating feminism. That moment literally changed the course of my life.

Body politics are a huge part of what I discuss on this blog. Why are bodies presented the way that they are in mass media? It is increasingly difficult to tell whether media influences reality or reality influences media or whether it is some combination of the two. It is certainly easy to see how deeply held ideologies play out in media. Control of women's bodies is a theme that advertisers just cannot get enough of. And reproductive control is a large part of that.

I recently got into a heated debate with an old friend about why I vote pro-choice. This friend was upset when I said that it is unlikely that I will ever vote for a candidate who is not pro-choice. He suggested that other issues were more important, like privacy from governmental interference into our private lives. (It will not surprise you to know that he is a Ron Paul supporter.) I suggested to him that as a woman I feel that my uterus is about as private as it can get and that if that is such a pivotal issue, than this candidate is just an enormous hypocrite. Why is bodily sovereignity only a pivotal issue until it is a pregnant body? Why is this enormous hypocrisy so unimportant to Paul's supporters?

Choice is among the most important issues that I consider when choosing a candidate. I know that reproductive control is woman hatred, misogynistic, and backwards. I trust women to make their own choices. And I know that anti-choicers are also anti-contraception leaving women with NO choice. I know that I would never be able to enjoy heterosexual intercourse again if I knew that if the condom broke, if I forgot a few pills, if my diaphragm slipped or we just got careless that there would be no safety net. I believe that sexuality should not be dictated by the government and that without Roe V. Wade the privacy of one's body and bedroom would be no more. I also see major hypocrisies that even so-called progressive people are choosing to ignore because of their (male) privilege.

And finally, I know that abortion rights are not the end all of feminism because so many women do not have access to even minimal health care that choice seems like privileged feminist rhetoric and I think that that is also woman hatred, misogynistic and backwards.

I am thankful every single day for the reproductive rights granted to me by Roe Vs. Wade but like so many other bloggers today, I recognize that a lot of work still needs to be done to ensure that abortion rights are not just a mirage for so many women.

More Guest Blogging for Choice

Another of my fabulous friends wrote a great piece for Blogging for Choice Day. Erika is a friend from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She is working on her undergrad. at UWM in Nursing with minor in Women's Studies. I think her perspective is so important because she has a foot in both fields when it comes to the issue of choice.


What Roe V. Wade Means to Me

You want to know what Roe V. Wade means to me? Not much actually, especially if you’re asking me as a Wisconsin woman. Wisconsin is a pretty progressive and accepting state, which is little known to people who live outside of it. The state of Wisconsin in general, allows a woman to have a choice, until you look a little closer. If you live in Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay (and their surrounding areas) then maybe you do have a choice. But for 80% of Wisconsin counties you probably will not have access to this choice because doctors are not licensed (by choice) or clinics where one could have a choice are not there. So you tell me what choice is it for 80% of the young, poor, and immobile women of Wisconsin is there to make? And that is not even half of the battle. Every weekend I can drive down Farwell Ave (in Milwaukee, WI) and see people with giant posters of aborted fetuses chanting about sins and wrongs women are doing just by entering a clinic. How accessible is that? Do I think I would want to walk into that clinic knowing with what I would meet just outside of it?

Roe Vs. Wade was supposed to mean something and should mean something, but does it really? The reason Roe V. Wade will stay in “limbo” amongst politicians, “friendly” debates, and bloggers is because it has somehow found its way in an untouchable place where it can blindly keep both sides happy. We supporters of choice think we’ve won! Aha! We have a choice, and if you don’t agree, too bad we’ve got Roe V. Wade in our hands to prove it to you pro-“lifers” that we have the law on our side. I just hope that excitement and your choice (if you live in WI) will last ‘til you get to the clinic (if you’re fortunate enough to get to one) and are met with people telling you “All babies want to get borned” and that your baby probably “has fingernails” (Quotes from Juno). There is no choice, when there has already been one made for you. This needs to change and not just be a luxury for women who are more privileged.