“Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no,’”You can hear Rep. Brown's speech HERE
The Speaker pro tem (Rep. John Walsh) wasn't happy. The result: Rep. Brown wasn't allowed to speak the following day. The issue? A spokesman for the Speaker's Office said this:
“It has nothing to do with her using the word ‘vagina.' The Speaker Protempore at the time was John Walsh. It was his judgment at the time that when she finished her statement by referencing her vagina, and then saying ‘no means no,’ that was drawing in a rape reference, and he felt that crossed the line.”Can we believe that?
I'm on Rep. Brown's side when it comes to the abortion issue. She was angry; I understand why. But that's not the question I'm trying to worry here. What I'm asking is whether someone could reasonably take Rep. Brown's words as the speaker pro tem supposedly did. It seems to me the answer is yes. You don't have to be a prude, let alone a Michigan Republican, to hear "I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina" as a not-so-oblique sexual reference. And when you add "'No' means 'no'" it's also hard not to hear a reference to rape.
A small thought experiment. Suppose Rep. Brown had said "I'm intrigued that you're all so interested in my uterus. But it's not yours. It's mine and you need to leave it alone." My bet is that nothing would have happened.
"Aha!" you say. "The word 'vagina' really was the issue."
Not so fast. I'm not saying that the word 'vagina' didn't have anything to do with the reaction. I'm saying that it wasn't the word as such. It was what the whole remark suggested. The judgment call was that this was, as they say, unparliamentary language. Legislatures have much stricter codes of decorum than political rallies. (That, after all, is why legislators keep saying "Mr. Speaker" when it's clear that they're not really addressing the speaker.)
Was not letting her speak the next day the right reaction? I'm for more speech rather than less, but here's something I don't know; if you do, you can bring me up to speed. What are the usual parliamentary sanctions for unparliamentary language? I'd want to know that before I decide that Rep. Walsh was out of line on that call.
But why am I fussing about niceties of language? It's partly because there are lots of real issues to discuss, and I'd rather they get discussed head-on. I also get tired of the cycle of talking about words when words aren't the issue. I felt that way when Republicans pounced on President Obama's comparison between the private and public sectors. Of course the private sector isn't doing as well as we'd like. But that wasn't the point of the president's comment. And I felt the same way when Democrats grabbed hold of Gov. Romney's remark that "corporations are people." What he clearly meant, if you go back and listen, was that corporations are made up of people; he meant pretty much the opposite of what liberals pretended.
I think we do better talking about hot-button issues when we watch what we say. My own view is that there's plenty to be said on behalf of Rep. Brown's point of view. Among other things, I think her point about religious conscience was a powerful one. But someone could agree with that (as I do) and also think (as I also do) that her next remark, taken in context, may have crossed a parliamentary line and that the speaker, whose job it is to mind such matters, was not out of bounds to see it that way. Pretending it's all about the word "vagina" is a distraction at best and disingenuous at worst.
There's a broader and more important point. I disagree deeply with the prevailing Republican view on abortion, for reasons that would call for a separate discussion. That said, my disagreement is tempered in this way: there are many people who honestly, sincerely see most case of abortion as the murder of the innocent. If I saw things as they do, I'd be in favor of the very laws that, as it happens, Rep. Brown and I both oppose. But I don't think that people who disagree with me are fools or evil on that account, or that they have to be motivated by a perverse desire to control women. As I tell my students every time it comes up, the abortion issue is a hard one; if you think otherwise, you need to think some more. For exactly that reason, I'd really like to find ways to talk about it that one side or the other won't see as rhetorical bomb-throwing.
No comments:
Post a Comment