Is this your business?
I usually enjoy Stuart Cosgrove's column in the Sunday National. He writes well and often on interesting topics.
But not this week.
This week, Stuart was writing about abortion. He put it in the context of 'the abortion clampdown in some US states' and it took him until the third paragraph of the column to stop talking about himself and his Catholic upbringing and start making space for the views of the people who really matter in this issue: women.
He lamented the decision by southern US states (Alabama and Georgia are just two of them) to ban abortion once a 'foetal heartbeat' has been heard. Then he praised the Texas legislature for resisting such a test. He also raised the ridiculous picture of women dressed as Handmaids (in the style of Margaret Atwood's novel), but used the words 'intriguing and clever' to describe what was going on.
The second part of Stuart's column was frankly disgraceful: he wrote at length about the importance of Hollywood money to states like Georgia where TV series are now often recorded. He pointed out the economic results of any decision by Hollywood moguls to give up filming TV programmes in the south. Worse, southern states were urged not to go for boycotts of Hollywood plans. This has to do with the Me Too campaign. Anyone remember that? I do. I remember a long queue of women appearing in front of TV cameras to complain that they had been sexually abused by men in positions of power in the media.
So let me lay out my stall: what has it got to do with Stuart Cosgrove whether women can have an abortion or not? Absolutely nothing, in my opinion. It's a personal matter.
Why does Stuart feel he can refer to the authoritarian action of some US states to prevent women having abortions as a 'clampdown.' Women make up 53 % of the population of the world. Is anyone entitled to clamp down on what women do? If so, who are they - and why do they have this right?
I suspect the old patriarchy is at work here. Even though Stuart Cosgrove is a decent guy, he still has that old idea that somehow major decisions - especially moral decisions - are the business of men, women being too stupid to handle them.
It would be terrific if Stuart Cosgrove could see the error of his ways and apologise for the level of bollocks he wrote this weekend, but personally I would settle for him agreeing that women's rights - especially over reproduction - are the business of women - and only women.
If I was being crude about it, I'd say: Get your nose out of our vaginas.
But not this week.
This week, Stuart was writing about abortion. He put it in the context of 'the abortion clampdown in some US states' and it took him until the third paragraph of the column to stop talking about himself and his Catholic upbringing and start making space for the views of the people who really matter in this issue: women.
He lamented the decision by southern US states (Alabama and Georgia are just two of them) to ban abortion once a 'foetal heartbeat' has been heard. Then he praised the Texas legislature for resisting such a test. He also raised the ridiculous picture of women dressed as Handmaids (in the style of Margaret Atwood's novel), but used the words 'intriguing and clever' to describe what was going on.
The second part of Stuart's column was frankly disgraceful: he wrote at length about the importance of Hollywood money to states like Georgia where TV series are now often recorded. He pointed out the economic results of any decision by Hollywood moguls to give up filming TV programmes in the south. Worse, southern states were urged not to go for boycotts of Hollywood plans. This has to do with the Me Too campaign. Anyone remember that? I do. I remember a long queue of women appearing in front of TV cameras to complain that they had been sexually abused by men in positions of power in the media.
So let me lay out my stall: what has it got to do with Stuart Cosgrove whether women can have an abortion or not? Absolutely nothing, in my opinion. It's a personal matter.
Why does Stuart feel he can refer to the authoritarian action of some US states to prevent women having abortions as a 'clampdown.' Women make up 53 % of the population of the world. Is anyone entitled to clamp down on what women do? If so, who are they - and why do they have this right?
I suspect the old patriarchy is at work here. Even though Stuart Cosgrove is a decent guy, he still has that old idea that somehow major decisions - especially moral decisions - are the business of men, women being too stupid to handle them.
It would be terrific if Stuart Cosgrove could see the error of his ways and apologise for the level of bollocks he wrote this weekend, but personally I would settle for him agreeing that women's rights - especially over reproduction - are the business of women - and only women.
If I was being crude about it, I'd say: Get your nose out of our vaginas.
Comments
Post a Comment