Now the abortion debate is about who can debate

I’m not usually one to comment on what other people have commented, but the reaction of a Jezebel poster on a male account of attending an “abortion party” (yes, they apparently exist) really rubbed me the wrong way.

Byard Duncan wrote a post about attending an abortion party. The girl who got pregnant decided she wanted to terminate, but was unable to pay for it, hence the party.

While attending said party, he observes the girl’s boyfriend looking kind of uncomfortable, and spent the last part of his account wondering about male roles in abortion decisions.

But a success with a question mark. As Ali and I walked home, we wondered together what exactly the relationship between abortion and “maleness” is supposed to look like. What is a man’s role in the decision? Does including a male partner’s perspective necessarily compromise a woman’s agency, as Maggie’s friends seemed to believe? It’s not that much of a stretch — after all, male perspectives have suffocated debate around the issue for way too long.

Anna N. at Jezebel took offense:

Rather than examining what it might mean to “celebrate” your abortion, what he really cares about is what abortion means for men. However, he is admirably open on this issue — he considers the possibility that a man’s proper role in abortion may be no role at all. And his assertion that women behave badly because of a sexist society is one that pisses me off a lot less when women say it. Throughout the article, I found myself thinking that Duncan was trying to be feminist and not really getting it right — but I’m not sure what “right” feminism looks like, and I certainly don’t expect it of all women. Duncan seems to me like he doesn’t truly understand women’s experiences — he’s a prisoner of his gender. But maybe I’m also a prisoner of mine.

First of all, I don’t find what is wrong with a man being allowed a least a voice in the debate — especially if that man is the committed boyfriend of the pregnant woman. I believe that the ultimate choice lies with the woman (and in cases of abuse, ONLY lies with the woman) but if you are in a relationship with someone, that choice should at least be discussed. A man’s feelings on the issue shouldn’t be ignored simply because he’s a man.

Secondly, I’m bothered by Anna’s asseumption that Duncan is “prisoner of his gender.” He was writing a first-hand account of what it was like for him — a man — to be at an abortion party. How can he approach the subject as anything other than a man, with male perspectives? I think this takes the feminist notion of men needing to “know” the insides and outs of female experience a little too far.

“Throughout the article, I found myself thinking that Duncan was trying to be feminist and not really getting it right — but I’m not sure what “right” feminism looks like.” Here is a major flaw in her whole post. She is complaining that Duncan isn’t getting feminism “right” although she herself doesn’t know. Feminism for a lot of people (especially women of my generation) doesn’t have specific definitions, and is more up to the individual than the many.

Ultimately, I feel Anna’s argument that Duncan was trying to make a female issue a male issue was far too knee-jerk of a reaction. His questioning of the male role in the abortion debate is a valid one, and his treatment of the subject was in no way ignorant or condescending of women.