Jump to content

Louie Gohmert Tells Woman She Should Have Carried Brain-Dead Fetus To Term, Just In Case

Recommended Posts

Alright, let's get this straight. A member of Congress has a moral objection to a particular act (abortion) that is grounded in his religious beliefs. Regardless of whether or not abortion is actually immoral in nature, the Congressman has every right to object to practices that violate his religious beliefs. He is not a "fuckface white male". He is a human being with as much right to freely voice his opinions as any one of us.

lol and just as much as he has "every right" to say those things, we have "every right" to call him a "fuckface white male". Freedom of speech =/= freedom from criticism, and it also =/= freedom to oppress.


So I am going to use my "right to object" to say fuck him and fuck everybody that thinks they can use their position of privilege or some ridiculous out-dated moral system based in authoritarian pseudo-religious viewpoints to oppress others.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not read whole thread; forgive is some is repeated.


1) Was probably an overstatement. I think there's a valuable point to be made about privilege's intersectionality and the ways in which whiteness informs certain masculinities (and is likewise informed by them) but the OP was admittedly not a carefully worded dissertation on Louie Gohmert. 


2) Privilege IS intersectional. Its impossible to discuss the ways in which maleness is filtered and framed without simultaneously discussing the person's race. Religious straight white men in particular historically have a particularly inhumane lack of empathy because they end up on top everywhere, so there isn't a reflexive "I've felt like that" empathy that accompanies having experienced oppression. People who have been on the bottom of "the system" (whatever flavor of the system you may or may not end up on bottom of) are 1) more likely to believe there is a bottom (some people think we're post-racial and men's rights are trampled) and 2) more likely to understand how terrible it feels to be there.


when I posted that comment, I stopped and thought about the only discussion I've ever had with a mother who had an abortion. she did so for medical reasons, at the cost of her life and the baby's. there was absolutely no other medical choice; viability wasn't even a question. 


she sobbed. decades later, she sobbed about how she still mourned its anniversary, how she still felt wracked with guilt, how it was one of the most traumatic and sensitive and delicate situations a human being could ever be confronted with - and when I thought of that, I exploded with fury at the blithe and mechanical response that deliberately had to look past the human element in this woman's suffering to say "couldn't you have carried the dead baby to term, just in case?"


That is why I called him a fuckface.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



1. My argument is that Priviledge happens based on situational cues.  Its not universalized.  (i.e. the rich African american suburbs in Houston, Atlanta, and most every other big city) verus the poor

Also, It still depends on the good/bad choices people make.

The priviledge authors aren't particularly interested in having micro-based theory.  They are interested in marco-changes.

As such, their theory has gaps at the micro level. Admittedly, my exposure to the theory was primarily 15 years ago--

and I'm intuiting an argument.


Should the African american from a rich suburb in Atlanta whose parents get a scholarship over the poor White boy from West Virginia whose dad worked in the coal mines?  A broad application of our 60 second version of priviledge theory doesn't have the nuances to deal with these real world problems.  Even internal critiques however.....in cunningham......and perhaps even wildman and davis point to multi-dimensionality.  I still think the suitcase analogy and #s list means that race gets the priority almost by default.


2. RE: Your example of privilege.  Those people with whom a minority has good relationships--have the potential for qualitatively better relationships (ie they respect and love me despite my race & perhaps other categories).


The second, isn't so much an argument as a paradoxical benefit.


3. Pockets of priviledge--not universalized.  Listing a privilege isn't a response to the situational argument anyway.  Also, social capital is only useful if it is used and used semi-effectively.  


I'm probably being overly aware or sensitive to the differences.  But surely when we deploy category based arguments in debate (race, sex, etc.....)....we should be aware of how those codes and assumptions link to race (ie may be replicating the racism and stereotypes we are trying to overcome and defeat).  Paying attention to nuance can be important in this regard.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...