As the initial reactions to George Tiller’s death taper off, I find it time to re-focus our feminist lenses and to remain well aware of what could be slipping by.
While rightist (pro-life) publications continue to denounce the actions of Scott Roeder (Tiller’s charged murderer) leftist (pro-choice) publications continue to develop and frame an argument more akin to a nationalist, heteropatriarchal agenda that appears supportive of violence, heterosexism, racism, and a general tightening on reproductive freedom.
In his article, “Slam Bill O’ Reilly for His Jihad Against Dr. George Tiller,” Isaac Fitzgerald proffers an argument that frames O’ Reilly (and by proxy Fox News and conservatives pro-lifers) as a terrorist. Fitzgerald’s strategic use of ‘jihad’ in his article’s title suggests his specific framing of O’ Reilly as a Muslim extremist/radical terrorist—who else has the power to demand jihad?! Fitzgerald further refers to Tiller’s murder as an “act of domestic terrorism,” which is merely a flag for 911 all over again. The tactics used by Fitzgerald (and by similar commentators) are bland at most and pathetic at the least.
First, articles like this bank on the same fear tactics that the Bush administration maniacally developed during the past 8 years. That said, using the same rhetoric as the previous administration shows precisely where this level of commentary resides. Further, by harking on terror-fear-tactics, anything can be said and done in the name of homeland protection (the passing of the (un)Patriot Act, Bush’s extension of executive power, etc.). Indeed, the naming of this incident as an act of domestic terrorism assumes that there resides a collective national homeland that has been invaded from within. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield illustrates the linking of Tiller’s death to a nationalist drive when he states that “Dr. Tiller’s murder is an attack on America” and that “we need to reframe this debate from one about abortion to one about democracy.”
As a queer feminist I find nationalism a scary idea that must be attended to and dismantled immediately. In the case of many of the seemingly pro-Tiller/pro-choice/leftist news stories out there, we must be cautious of nationalist agendas being unconsciously (or are they?) prompted during times of uncertainty and fear. As a queer feminist that is pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-access, pro-life, pro-child, and pro-agency, I find nationalist agendas frighteningly heteropatriarchal and worthy (and in demand) of feminist deconstruction.
As most of us know, nationalism maintains reproduction as a foremost concern. It holds women as possessing but one job: walking womb/uterus with legs. It denies access to abortion, illegalizes abortion, silences women, and it heralds violence against women as necessary to ensuring national strength and unity. It heralds heterosexuality as the primary mode of being while demonizing (and destroying) queer life. It praises a single racial (national) entity (in this case white Christianity as Fitzgerald so eloquently demonized Muslims and other middle-eastern (brown) people as an example). And finally, it accomplishes all of these points with the use of violence and force. Rabbi Hirschfield’s suggestion that the abortion debate be reframed to be about democracy is one that effectively erases women’s lives as well as the effect that this debate has on real peoples lives that are not hegemonic, straight white males. In fact, as Rabbi Hirschfield fails to see is that to reframe the national abortion debate into one that focuses on democracy over abortion buttresses the very nation-state (America and all of its institutions including heteropatriarchy) that has systematically denied and oppressed women time and time again.
So, when we pro-choicers are reading articles about Tiller’s murder; When we are seeking solace and a place to direct our anger; Remain focused and do not allow the sly words of a nationalist agenda to guide your device. Do not be taken in by the simplistic thinking of fear tactics that support the death of Tiller’s murderer as an eye for an eye justification. This thinking is not feminist. Rather, it is hegemonic masculinist in action, it is nationalist in play and it is dangerous in thought.
Re-focus those feminist lenses and be aware of the larger picture.
For an alternative reading of Tiller’s murder, check out James Kirchick’s article on the Wall Street Journal.
I understand the urge to denounce nationalist ideas. i have that same urge. i also understand, after 8 years of hearing the words “terror” and “evil” ad infinitum, the gag reflex that accompanies these words for most liberals opposing both Bush and the Iraq war.
However, i must ask, how do we, as a society, view hate speech? Haven’t we seen enough violence and murder in the abortion and gay rights movements to understand that hateful words often lead to violent acts? I do believe the murder of Dr. Tiller was an act of terrorism. This assassination occurred to send a message of fear throughout the community of abortion providers and anyone affiliated with reproductive healthcare clinics across this country. This act was meant to send a national message. I do not believe pro-choice groups are currently aiming to send a nationalist message of that reinforces heteronormativity. If anything comes close to securing the phallocentricity of our society, it is the action of the man who shot Dr. Tiller in order to silence a person who trusted women enough to understand that they are responsible and competent human beings with the full capability to make difficult decisions that are correct for their body and their circumstances.
I also believe that now more than ever, abortion providers and the pro-choice orgs supporting them need to, and will, band together to stop the violence that certain members of the anti-choice community actually claim to be justified. Again, where is there room for compromise with a community that fuels enough hatred to incite American citizens to kill, bomb, assault, threaten and harass on a daily basis. What did Operation Rescue really believe would be the outcome of their “Tiller Watch?” Why would their words of hate and accusation make anyone who is an abortion provider change their mind, or in the very least, seek compromise or even dialogue with a group of strangers who claim to hate you?
this is a complicated matter. the solution may be years off. the only option i see is for the pro-choice community to keep on and work to keep providers, clinics and the women who elect and need abortions safe. abortion is a necessary service, and we must keep it protected legally so women will have access to a procedure that is safe and sterile.
i also think the pro-choice movement has become complacent. breaking out of our complacency by calling acts of terror by their real name will help us break out of our denial that the fight is over. The fight is not over. Access to medically accurate reproductive healthcare is very much in peril. and now given the economy, devastatingly underfunded.
I have to agree with Natalia on this one, Benny. If you take a look at the dictionary definition of terrorism, the actions of Scott Roeder, Randall Terry, and the rest of their ilk are terrorism. They are using violence to try to control people through fear.
I agree with you that nationalism is bad, and that we should reject the drumbeat of the past decade where everyone who is against the neocons is painted as a terrorist. But I think calling white Christian fundamentalists terrorists does far more to deconstruct the narrative than abandoning the term terrorism altogether does. Let’s not forget that Timothy McVeigh, the man who blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, was a white Christian fundamentalist male. Right wing extremists who make up the KKK and other neo-Nazi groups are also terrorists. And this country’s history is replete with examples of white Christian males using violence to achieve political objectives. Let’s stop skirting around the issue and call it what it is. Violence that is intended to control political outcomes is terrorism. And the people who stand outside abortion clinics trying to intimidate women into not having abortions are terrorists. People who kill abortion doctors or clinic escorts are terrorists. It is what it is.
Benny, thanks for the thought provoking discussion of nationalist rhetoric and its relationship to the discussion surrounding George Tiller’s death.
One thing that I would like to point out without repeating the magnificent words of the feminists who commented before me, is that I think there is a fundamental distinction between the securitization of the bush administration and the identification of extreme acts of violence as terrorism.
The tactics of the Bush administration was to paint a face on a faceless enemy. I mean, we never really knew who we were fighting when we were waging war on ‘terrorism’, and it was that manifestation of a faceless enemey that increased things like racial profiling, violence against self identified muslims, and an overall construction of threats in order to justify our own un-ethical acts of violent behavior.
Labeling the violence against George Tiller as a ‘terrorism’ is much different to me because it isnt a faceless enemy. There is a face and there is an act of egregious violence that by definition terrorism.
just my thoughts…
Thank you both Natalia and freewomyn for your dialogue! Much appreciated and very engaging.
Indeed, these are acts of terrorism–to that I do agree fully. Perhaps my hesitation lies in paralleling these terrorists to radical islamic terrorists exclusively. I think that our focus on Roeder, and other like terrorists, should be addressed and focused on as a different brand of terrorist separate from Islamic terrorism. A type of abortion terrorist maybe. See, while the dictionary definition of terrorism is useful, that same definition does not use radical Islamic terrorist imagery to develop its definition. So, why must we use this imagery to paint Roeder as a terrorist? Why not just use the dictionary definition?
Further, I hesitate likening Roeder to radical Islamic terrorists because I find that it further perpetuates a hatred toward our Muslim-American brothers and sisters. Finally, let’s not forget that the English dictionary changes every single day–let’s take the time to define a new brand of terrorism that targets women. I think we could call it patriarchal terrorism. Maybe patriarchy?
Again, thank you both so much for your comments.