AlterNet: The Foreign Language of Choice Search AlterNet: Enter any text to search. Advanced Search » IN SPECIAL COVERAGE WireTap: California Students Protest Cuts in Education Raj Jayadev MediaCulture: Pressing Bush? Eric Alterman Rights and Liberties: Castro Strikes a Nerve Jill Soffiyah Elijah DrugReporter: The High Cost of Prohibition Bruce Mirken EnviroHealth: Building a Water Democracy Juliette Beck War on Iraq: Did Someone Say Withdrawal? Ari Berman Movie Mix: Facing Forward Zack Pelta-Heller SUPPORT ALTERNET Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation. FEEDBACK Tell us how we're doing.The Foreign Language of Choice By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted June 2, 2005. Winning the debate over unwanted pregnancies requires Democrats to embrace four powerfully moral ideas -- and none of them have to do with 'choice.' Story Tools EMAIL PRINT BUY COMMENTS Also in Top Stories Make Iraq Topic #1 Arianna Huffington, AlterNet It’s a Pentagon World and Welcome to It Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com Debating Guantanamo Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Say No to Hillary In '08 Stephen Pizzo, News for Real More stories by George Lakoff The emphasis on framing and language is not a covert attempt to push women's issues that are controversial -- be it abortion or contraception -- off the progressive agenda. Quite to the contrary, it is a refusal to accept the conservative definition of the issues involved, and put forward a positive vision, based on deeply progressive values and moral perspective. Many of the feminist organizations have come to the conclusion that the word "choice," and the concept of choice, is a bad idea. Deborah Tannen, who is one of the best-known linguists in the country, observed over a decade ago that the word "choice" is taken from a consumer vocabulary -- as compared to the word "life," which is taken from a moral vocabulary. Morality beats consumerism every time. Moreover, the word "choice" versus "decision" is a bad idea because "choice" is less serious a word than "decision." From a linguistic perspective, "choice" was in itself a bad choice. The word "abortion" is also negative -- the word "abort" as in "abort the mission," as if something has gone terribly wrong. Now you can't just immediately change a word like that to something that's more positive, and in fact, abortions are not situations where things have gone right. The situation is an unwanted pregnancy, un-wanted, negative. If you use the word "abortion" at all these days, what you're doing is playing on the right's turf, where they have defined the issues to suit their interests, using their words. What is necessary is a redefinition -- what I will call a "reparsing" -- of the issue. There are four different types of reparsing that are required, and each expresses a powerfully moral idea grounded in a progressive moral perspective. Let's begin with the two ideas that Howard Dean talked about in his interview with Tim Russert. First, Dean reparsed the issue in terms of personal freedom. He brought up the case of Terry Schiavo, where many Americans felt that this right-wing administration was interfering in the personal freedom of the families involved. They did not want government interference in this most important decision in people's lives. This idea is crucial to American democracy and it was at stake in the Schiavo case -- and most people recognized it as such. Dean was saying, and rightly so, that this is one of the ways we should talk about cases of unwanted pregnancies. These are medical decisions where the government should not be making decisions for any individual or family. The second reparsing that Dean did in that interview was to take up the question of unwanted pregnancies itself. No one wants unwanted pregnancies, and there's no reason why we should have them since have the means to prevent these pregnancies. A very high percentage of the unwanted pregnancies are among women and girls who have been denied sex education and contraception. And yet the right-wing has been denying sex education to students, and in many cases, even denying contraception through its abstinence-only programs. Now we also face "vigilante pharmacists" who are not just imposing their own will on these women and depriving them of their personal freedom, but also their access to much-needed contraception. In other words, the right-wing is actually creating unwanted pregnancies. I would take this analysis further and argue that we should not allow the right-wing to take ownership of the value of life -- that is our value. And the first place we have to start talking about the value of life is on the issue of infant mortality. The United States has the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world, and there's no excuse for it. We have the medical care to prevent these deaths. The reason we continue to experience such high rates if infant mortality is that poor women are being denied prenatal and postnatal care, adequate health insurance, adequate food for their children -- and all this because of the attitude and policies of the conservatives. Conservatives have been killing babies -- real babies have been born and who people want and love. They have been responsible for the death of children in this country at an astounding rate -- and we should discuss this situation openly. In addition, by denying access to contraception -- by stopping the distribution of condoms, for example -- the right-wing is exposing people to AIDS, and therefore, again, supporting death. Furthermore, by refusing to implement policies that would lower the incidence of toxins in our environment, conservatives are actually threatening the health of newborn babies. There are about a hundred toxins, including mercury, in mothers' breast milk, which means that there are a hundred toxins in newborn babies -- all thanks to right-wing anti-environmental policies. In short, the right-wing is imposing a culture of death on this country and we shouldn't stand for it. Progressive values and politics are committed to preserving and nurturing life. Finally, I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but approximately 28,000 women in this country each year become pregnant as the result of a rape. That's a huge number and it occurs all over America. Here is the question that we must raise: should the federal government force a woman to bear the child of her rapist? By denying a rape victim access to family planning, to contraception, and to medical operations to end a pregnancy, the conservatives are, in effect, in favor of forcing rape victims to bear the children of their rapist. In Colorado, for example, the governor recently vetoed a bill that would have permitted rape crisis centers to inform rape victims of the effectiveness of the morning-after pill. Now this kind of counseling is the very minimum that a rape crisis center ought to be doing for rape victims. This is an outrage. This is an outrage against victims of rape who ought to be protected, not further exploited. So rather than trying to respond to some discussion about "abortion," we should actively, positively, put forward these four ideas -- personal freedom, zero tolerance for unwanted pregnancies, taking back life as a value, and protecting rape victims in this country from being forced to bear the children of their rapists. Martha Burk is right in saying that the Democrats have been too afraid to address women's issues directly. But the failure is deeper and more extensive. Democrats have been slavishly adhering to polls that have been shaped by Republican framing, Republican language. As a result, they have not been raising the most important issues in our society, be it with regard to women, the environment, or peace. George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. « AlterNet HomeStory Tools: EMAIL PRINT BUY COMMENTS COMMENTSGIVE US FEEDBACK » Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View: Threaded Minimal Flat Flat Unthreaded Morality beats consumerism every time. Posted by: WhatNow? on Jun 2, 2005 5:15 AM [Report this comment] You got to be kidding me! Consumerism has run amok in this country. Where's the morality in a women driving a 5000 lb. SUV down to the grocery store carrying nothing but a baby seat and her fat purse? It's wreaks disgustingly of conspicuous consumption aka consumerism. I see it all the time. I think I'm beginning to understand bush's culture of life better. The more children we can have born via unwanted pregnancies the more likely we'll have our way. Who better than a bunch of impoverished and poorly educated children to let us continue our ways in the future? Compassionate conservatism, what a joke. Where the compassion in trying to force a women to have her rapists child? Seems like away to extend the rape and deepen it's trauma. This child's heredity will be suspect. This child may end up being the same as it's father - hateful and cruel. Considering the child's conception it's enviroment may stacked against it too. To me this is just as much a man's issue as a woman's issue. We're all in this together. Anything that is used to detract from a woman's life will later be used to detract from a man's. I used to think women were better than men. Not in some ignorant way as they should be submissive or subordinate to a man but that they are kinder and more thoughtful. It's sad that as they've strived for equality they have espoused some of males more insidious traits. I always hate when I see a women do something lousy just saying "I'm just behaving like a man would." I only hope women will get smarter and I can once again think they are truly better than men. We need to you set a good example for boys annd girls to be kind, considerate, thoughtful, tolerant, intellegent, and humane. I don't like abortion but it should be woman's choice with a man's choice taken into consideration if the sex was consenual. I don't think a woman should be forced or coerced to not have the final decision in what she does with her body anymore than anybody should be able to force me what to do with mine. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: Morality versus consumerism Posted by: stevewilkesuk » RE: Morality beats consumerism every time. Posted by: Roni » RE: Morality beats consumerism every time. Posted by: Lathor Gretchen Posted by: geh218 on Jun 2, 2005 5:23 AM [Report this comment] I think this is an important and critical conversation to have and a tough one for people to really hear. However, I was thrown off by what I think is the misspelling of a word. I believe you meant to use the word rephrasing instead of reparsing. I could not find reparsing in the dictionary. Any discussion of this importance deserves spell check! Perhaps if you can't spell it you can't frame it! [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: Gretchen Posted by: stevewilkesuk » RE: Gretchen Posted by: kaste » RE: Gretchen Posted by: rue » RE: Gretchen Posted by: jwg » RE: Gretchen Posted by: AnitaNFD It's Not Just the Words That Count Posted by: chitijdth on Jun 2, 2005 5:27 AM [Report this comment] While I agree with Lakoff’s premise that the Democrats are allowing Republicans to frame the issues in ways that are damaging, I believe that the problem is more complicated and much deeper. If the Democratic Party still believed in their traditional positions of personal freedom while supporting the public good, they not only would have been able to respond differently, but people would have heard them. The real problem lies in the Democrats being as beholden to corporate money as the Republicans, leaving them in the position of “waffling” on too many issues. Thus, it is not only that they aren’t framing their positions adequately, they are caught between trying to offer their traditional voters something and placating those giving them large financial contributions. As long as they can take most of their progressive base for granted – since they will not vote for the Republicans – and as long as campaign finance reform stays off the table – nothing will change. It won’t matter if they proclaim they are for life instead of “pro choice” if many Democratic senators and congressional representatives continue to vote in favor of the war, tax cuts for the wealthy, punitive changes to the bankruptcy laws, more stringent curbs on a woman’s right to end an “unwanted pregnancy,” etc., etc. It is not only their language that has been de-based, but their actions. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: It's Not Just the Words That Count Posted by: Rod in 83706 morality and inequality Posted by: mothersmovement on Jun 2, 2005 5:31 AM [Report this comment] With all due respect to Mr. Lakoff, he seems to be missing the bigger picture of the debate surrounding reproductive justice for women, which is that it’s really about women, not “life” or babies’ right to it. As Mr. Lakoff points out, the groups working to restrict women’s ability to avoid or terminate an unwanted pregnancy don’t give a damn about babies—especially not about babies born to poor mothers of color, who are most likely to die in the first years of life. And needless to say they don’t give a damn about the children that babies grow into; the US has the highest rates of child poverty among wealthy nations, largely due to its failure to enact adequate policies to support maternal employment. Which, all things considered, is neither moral nor just. The abortion debate is not about the freedom of persons— it is about the freedom of women, in this case, their reproductive freedom. The political factions pushing abstinence-only education and working to limit access to abortion and contraception are coming from the position that motherhood, which has historically been used to justify women’s subordination and still is, is a woman’s best and most moral destiny and the only legitimate function of her sexuality. The proper context for the reproductive rights frame is human rights. Pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are not just transitory events that leave no trace on a woman’s life; they change her body and being profoundly and permanently. No one has the right to decide for a woman whether or when she will become a mother, period. Of course, in culture where women’s lives really don’t matter and mothers’ welfare is particularly expendable, that’s a pretty tough sell. Democrats and progressive thinkers in general need to stop imagining that the abortion debate is about anything other than institutionalizing women’s social and economic inequality. And as Martha Burk suggests in her commentary, they might at least acknowledge how that inequality presently plays out in women’s daily lives if they wish to attract women voters. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: mareeetee » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: AngryWhiteLiberalFemale » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: alice venturi » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: churchofone » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: Rod in 83706 » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: akwash79 » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: philame » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: akwash79 » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: philame » RE: morality and inequality Posted by: nickptar » RE: morality and inequality is not the point Posted by: karen Gretchen Posted by: geh218 on Jun 2, 2005 5:42 AM [Report this comment] My error. I looked up "parsing" and found it in the dictionary. There just wasn't reparsing! I stand by the importance of this discussion. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] brotherdave Posted by: brotherdave on Jun 2, 2005 6:50 AM [Report this comment] I like this constructive discussion. As a Progressive interested in advancing a new political agenda in our country, I hope we will all continue to support our allies and focus on our commonalities (universalities) and not our differences (divisive factore). [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Missing points Posted by: jmbarwell on Jun 2, 2005 6:59 AM [Report this comment] There are a couple of other points missing in this argument. There is a great opportunity in this debate to bring forward the larger issue of what role the government should play in our private lives. The Republicans are all over the map on this -- the government shouldn't tell you how to spend "your money" (taxes), but can bar you from reproductive health services. They are willing to cut subsidies to the sick and elderly, while fighting to extend the life of the brain dead -- without dealing with who will foot the costs. I am not proabortion, but am staunchly against government and religious people trying to micromanage my most intimate personal crises. The second issue is economics. An increasing number of jobs today do not offer sustainable wages or health coverage. A woman in one of these jobs who finds herself pregnant may very well be making the toughest economic decision of her life in deciding to abort because she cannot see how to maintain her own economic viability through an unwanted pregnancy -- a time when she is most vulnerable. Thus, the limits of government interference in our personal lives and the ability of women to earn a livelihood through an unwanted pregnancy are issues that must also be included in the debate. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Lakoff, you da' man ! :) Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 2, 2005 7:22 AM [Report this comment] I read your book and I must say, I like the way you advocate showing respect while exposing conservatives for abusing "Strict Father Morality" to promote fascism. The reviews at amazon.com are unlike what I've seen of most liberal/progressive books. In addition to Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?" , many reviewers who strongly recommend this book for the betterment of society even come from the solid red states like Nebraska and Mississippi to name a couple. It's nice to see Lakoff giving us his thoughts and acknowledging Dean's endorsement of his idea of reframing. If only more Democrats would listen to Lakoff and Frank and stop pandering to Republicans like they've been doing for 25-50 years. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] It doesn't matter how you "RE-FRAME" it... Posted by: owlbear1 on Jun 2, 2005 7:46 AM [Report this comment] They'll just twist that as well... How about calling it what it is : Forcing their Religious beliefs onto the nation. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] NEWSPEAK Posted by: mareeetee on Jun 2, 2005 8:06 AM [Report this comment] The liberal argument against the Schiavo case makes no sense. They keep saying people felt "government should not interfere in the family's personal decisions" Why do they keep ignoring the obvious fact that Terri's family was BEGGING for help from the government because they believed their rights and Terri's had been violated, since her estranged cheating husband who was living with another woman was the only who Greer considered the "family" of Terri? This whole idea about right to abortion being an issue of "human rights" will never work for you guys. You keep ignoring the most fundamental right which is the right to life. You just don't want to address the issue of whether an unborn child has a right to life, and the fact that unless there is a rape it is the mother's free actions that brought that life into being. The unborn child is always and forever "left out" of any of your discussions. With rights come responsibilities. Is having sex a right with no responsibility for children you conceive? I think not. With all rights come responsibilities, but you just don't want them. Parents are responsible for the children they conceive, and do not have the right to kill them, but you just don't want to accept it. You just want the fun without shouldering the responsibility of the consequences of your actions, and that's why in the long run the public will never accept the "pro-choice" agenda. Your solution is always death, we believe in finding positive solutions to unwanted pregancy without killing. PS Using the word "decision" instead of choice will not be any more effective! "Decision" often has a dark and heavy connotation and much as you try it will not maketh idea of killing an unborn any more appealing. In the long run even Madison Ave cannot help you. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » Excuse me? Posted by: CLB » RE: xcuse me? Posted by: nickptar » RE: NEWSPEAK Posted by: atticus » RE: NEWSPEAK Posted by: nickptar » RE: NEWSPEAK Posted by: speaker » RE: NEWSPEAK Posted by: lightseeker Another argument Posted by: coreblue on Jun 2, 2005 8:58 AM [Report this comment] Another argument that hasn't been heard is Safe, Equal, and Legal medical care vs. Unsafe, Unequal, and Illegal medical care. Recognize the result if abortion becomes illegal. It's documented that abortion rates have risen with this administration, no doubt in part due to diminished real sex education and access to contraception. The reality is that abortion will always exist and will be legal or illegal with outcomes reflecting each. It seems reasonable that restricting legal abortion will result in increased illegal and unsafe procedures. So the issue is: will we support equal, safe, and legal medical care for all citizens or will we discriminate against 50% of the population by denying safe and legal care to women? Restricting abortion is supporting Unsafe, Illegal, and Unequal medical care for half the population. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: Another argument Posted by: churchofone *Great* Article Posted by: beata on Jun 2, 2005 9:21 AM [Report this comment] For a long time I've viewed the frame of "choice" as an oversimplification, at best. The answer to abortion is NOT to force strict religious mores upon people against their will. If you choose to be a Judeo-Christian, you have obligated yourself to follow Judeo-Christianity's rules - but Judeo-Christians are overstepping in their attempts to use government to force those who choose not to believe those things to abide by their rules. Secular law is the "cake," religious mores are the "frosting" - not the other way around. I wish our society could learn to celebrate sex and childbirth in a healthy way instead of vilifying it or "pornographying" it. We as a society also need to confront and cast off the outmoded idea that virginity is a marketable commodity. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: *Great* Article Posted by: nickptar Women's Rights Don't Exist in a Vacuum Posted by: azulynn on Jun 2, 2005 1:23 PM [Report this comment] Mr. Lakoff stimulates a very productive debate! I think that the most important concept he mentions is that of the "personal freedom of families" because it touches the hearts of both conservatives and liberals. Instead of emphasizing women's rights, human rights or childrens' rights, let's sing the praises of the rights of every family to mediate its own destiny with the help of its own family doctors, lawyers and community structures, including churches. Let's call for FAMILY RIGHTS. This will mean practicing democracy in our own families, not having it imposed from "above". Then we can call for the proper emphasis on paternal responsibility, maternal responsibility and the rights, privileges and responsibilities of every family member. Granted that many people do not have functional families, they still have the right to have a community that will support them in acquiring a family and FAMILY RIGHTS. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] How about: "Involuntary Motherhood?" Posted by: pklammer on Jun 2, 2005 1:27 PM [Report this comment] What the Right is forcing upon us is "Involuntary Motherhood" -- by rape or by unintended pregnancy by any means, they have an attitude that the planted seed is sacrosanct. "End Involuntary Motherhood" is a crisp, bumper-sticker-concinct framing of the problem. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: How about: "Involuntary Motherhood?" Posted by: freedomlover Speaker Posted by: speaker on Jun 2, 2005 7:42 PM [Report this comment] As the article said, the so-called conservatives are actually killing babies, because good medical care is unaffordable in this country. So we have a very high infant mortality rate. That is acceptable to the clean handed lily pure religious conservatives, while birth control and sex education is not. As is so very apparent, they have no concern whatsoever for the living, only the unborn. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Framing left and right Posted by: Mitch on Jun 2, 2005 8:32 PM [Report this comment] I don't know: Framing just seems to me political marketing: a superficial attempt into fooling people into thinking something has changed when it hasn't. Framing is Newspeak in reverse: creating new terms in order to fog up the thinking, rather than eliminating words in order to restrict thinking. If you are not changing the assumptions and values that support your position, changing the words you use to express that position only buys you a little time until people catch on to the scam. The source of the conflict between left and right is the tension between equality and liberty. Liberty and equality are simply and insescapably in conflict (not mutuallly exclusive, but in conflict on the margin), and as long as the left values equality over liberty and the right values liberty over equality, the right will see the left as proto-communistic and attempting to establish a paternalistic governmental order, and the left will see the right as proto-fascist and attempting to establish a theocracy.The values are different, we have yelled ourselves into antagonistic corners, and no amount of language changing is going to close that gap. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: Maybe so, but... Posted by: Urstrly » RE: Framing left and right Posted by: lightseeker What about men's responsibility? Posted by: philame on Jun 3, 2005 6:36 AM [Report this comment] Women's talk about "human rights" will never help "us"? Mareetee talks about women as if they are irresponsible little girl whores who conviently use the notion of human rights as a crutch because we have yet to learn the "serioussness " and "consequences" of sex that "mature, adult" males have learned. Obviously men are very serious and responsible adults when it comes to sex because you did not see a need to scold and discipline them about their sexual behaviors. But this leaves a very obvious question to be answered: With all of the modern birth control available, how on earth are women becoming pregnant if men are such serious, resposible adults? Is it immaculate conception? I am not putting all the blame for unplanned, unwanted pregnancy on men, I just do not want to see all the blame placed on women and us get disciplined like children again and again. Actually, I don't want to see BLAME at all because sex and procreation are a part of life and shouldn't be used as a measure of human morality. Mothersmovement made a great point about the impact of pregnancy and motherhood on a woman's life and it is sad to see that basic truth get sidelined by attempts to control women's activities in this life. I want us talking about how we are going to support children AND women and not simply condeming women as girl whores and allowing men to escape the situation as if they have no role to play. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Morality Posted by: akwash79 on Jun 3, 2005 6:59 AM [Report this comment] Everyone is talking about other people shoud not impose their religious moral values on the rest of society such as in the case of abortion. But the question is whether or not this is a religious objection or a survival of species objection. Are people imposing the religion on you when they state that you cannot murder or steal from another human being even though there are many people in this sociecy who would gladly do so if there were no law against it. Some moral laws are necessary for the survival of the species. Maybe thats a little too extreme for this topic. In my mind(can't speak for everybody) its not a problem of right of a woman to do with her body as she pleases but its a problem of the life of the parent trumps that of the unborn child. As I stated in my earlier post I also dont understand how the life of a 1 day old baby trumps that of the cellular begining of human life. If its ok to terminate before birth why can't you terminate after? Its morally wrong to do it afterwards(puhleese). But to say its morally wrong before the birth is imposing religious values?(puhleese) That fails the logic test. After some critical, logical thinking the stage of developement argument is invalid but I have already posted on that. I consider myself to be extremely liberal but this one issue I cannot see eye to eye with other liberals one. Just haven't heard a logical argument for it. As for the poor issue, My mother raised me by herself after my father left when I was 4. She didn't go to college of have any special skills. We got along just fine. Sure I didn't go to the doctor as much as other kids and I didn't have all the "fashionable gear" and got picked on becuase I had goodwill clothes. Does that make my life any less important? Look at remote areas of Africa. Compared to the poorest U.S. citizen, those people live like cavemen. They seem to be surviving. In fact many years ago, humans did not have doctors, any money, no argicultural system but somehow they survived and managed to breed the common man. Seems the financial argument is invalid also. Please come up with a reasonable argument for it. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: Morality Posted by: philame » RE: Morality Posted by: nickptar » RE: Morality Posted by: akwash79 » RE: Morality Posted by: nickptar » RE: Morality Posted by: akwash79 » RE: Morality Posted by: lulu17 » RE: Morality Posted by: akwash79 » RE: Morality Posted by: Cardano » RE: Morality Posted by: akwash79 » RE: Morality Posted by: Cardano » RE: Morality Posted by: Cardano » What a frightening thread Posted by: philame » RE: What a frightening thread Posted by: Cardano Is Lakoff's framing even compatible with feminist thought? Posted by: philame on Jun 3, 2005 7:16 AM [Report this comment] This is a weighty question, I know. I don't have the conclusive answer but want to put the question out there. I first want to say I commend Lakoff for bringing the power of language to the attention of Democrats. He brought a simplified version of Foucault's ideas about knowledge/power/discourse into public debate - hats off to you! However, his reframing attempts do not break with the Republican knowledge/power/discourse on governing e.g. he hangs onto this idea of the state as parent. The parent model carries with it all of the emotionalism and "morality" that the Rebuplicans are peddling. Moreover this supposedly "new" frame hampers debate on women's rights because it is still done in the language of "morality" which has always been used to restrict women's activities. Also intertesting to note that the theme of Lakoff's article was that the Dems have not abandoned women but very little debate in response to the article has been about women. Topics associated with women like "abortion" and "children" have been debated but many more others not traditonally associated with women have been debated. This reinforces for me the gut feeling I have that Lakoff's frame doesn't jive with feminist thought. Don't get me wrong, you've done some important work Lakoff. Unfortunately women's rights aren't being championed by it. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » RE: well, it isn't incompatible Posted by: Urstrly » RE: well, it isn't incompatible Posted by: Cardano On The Foreign Language of Choice Posted by: operarus on Jun 3, 2005 10:32 AM [Report this comment] Regarding previous comments and the article, it seems to me that the issue comes down to today's conservatism being essentially a cynical, selfish philosophy, from the economic views to the religious views -- "my way is the only way that counts and I will do whatever is necessary (read: expedient) to preserve it." Why not frame things with this in mind, and let them try to deny it? It's all about preserving power and money and to gain ascedancy toward these, and not about anything else. Human values are only a means to an end for them. We need to fight fire with fire! Fight words with words -- the right words (pun intended). [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] The inheritance of language Posted by: noncapricious on Jun 3, 2005 11:22 AM [Report this comment] I do agree with the propositions as stated. However, they neglect one fact, and under-emphasize another. To wit: Neglected fact: you inherit the terms that "your side" in a debate has chosen. We can no easier eschew using pro-choice, than am Islamic resident on the Jordan's west bank can suddenly call himself a Cannaanite. When you accept another's label for too long, or choose a label for yourself, you leave yourself open to ridicule from your detractors, and disbelief from your supporters (confusion from the neutrals). This does not prevent us from framing the debate in the manner we choose, and if we need to sponsor polls using our partisan language, we can prove easily that fewer people are "anti-choice" than are "pro-death" (or pro-abortion, or whatever their phraseology is). Under-emphasized fact: A HUGE majority of the American populace is in favor of "standard" birth control choices. This number varies from state to state, and region to region, but it is never lower than 65%, and sometimes reaches 90%. THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDUCE ABORTIONS IS VIA BIRTH CONTROL. I've never heard anyone with any sense dispute this fact. Few of us ever thought we would be put in the position of having to defend birth control in general. Restricting access to birth control is not in the best interests of anyone - least of all government. One warning: we should exercize some restraint in using reduced abortion incidence in defending birth control. It can be used against us when we defend a woman's right to choose everything that enters or exits her body. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Is this about what women want or about what men want? Posted by: Diana on Jun 3, 2005 2:43 PM [Report this comment] Who causes all these unwanted pregnancies? Nearly always it is men as well as women. Who unwants all these unwanted pregnancies? Often it is men. Did Terri Schiavo ask for death? No, her husband said that was what she would want. This new so called liberation is a new version of old fashioned male domination. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Abortion from a soul's point of view: Posted by: karen on Jun 3, 2005 3:16 PM [Report this comment] Our religious views differ about how abortion is handled in Heaven. Angry responses to my belief system about how I believe God handles this issue will attest to the fact that that the religion of anyone faith should not be imposed on the faith of any others, certainly not by a nation's laws. This is my firm belief: The soon-to-earth soul is looking down on a would-be mother one day and sees that its mother's body aborted because of weakness from too many live births and physical weakness. It then patiently waits for the next chance. On the night its would-be parents would have conceived, they had an emergency in the family and didn't even have sex. Onto the next chance and the next, here a condom, there an infertile point in her cycle, and another chance aborted through medical means. What is an unborn to do? God answers, "My will can not be thwarted. You will be born in My own good time." Many will disagree with what I see happening in this endless cycle of births and multicause not-births. Is the soul at the mercy of the whims of mankind's capricious understanding or at the mercy of the Creator of all Mercy who cannot fail His creation? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] Some Questions for The Authority Posted by: RumpusKing on Jun 3, 2005 4:01 PM [Report this comment] (on language, that is) If "choice" has bad linguistic connotations and the word "abortion" has even worse, what linguistically positive word or phrase would you suggest for the process? (Preferrably something other than "Conservatives have been killing babies" and "The right wing is actually creating unwanted pregnancies.") Why does "redefinition" need to be redefined as "reparsing"...a word that hasn't existed until now? Why does an issue need to undergo redefinition (translation, reparsing...whatever you'd like to call it) to get people to agree with it? If it's a good idea, won't people agree with it no matter what you call it? Personal freedom is, of course, at the forefront of this debate, yet I've heard few people talk about the personal responsibility that comes hand-in-glove with that freedom. The Democrats' failure is indeed deep and extensive, but not for the reasons you put forth in your article. Blaming polls is not the answer. No matter what language they're couched in, people will understand the underlying concepts. Freedom, choice, and life are not issues to be tackled by linguistics. They are ideas that are self-evident. When you attempt to reword (reparse, redefine) them, you end up lost in the smoke and mirrors of your own creation and you end up looking like a shabby spin doctor. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] What a frightening thread! Posted by: philame on Jun 3, 2005 6:50 PM [Report this comment] Sorry to disturb you three's intellectual acrobatics - impressive as they are - but this thread is fundamentally sick. You three have abstracted this debate to the point where all of you felt comfortable with akwash79 referring to HUMAN WOMEN as "hosts". You three are comfortable with that?!?! And the rest of us who miraculously stayed awake during your collective ramblings as self-proclaimed ethicists are supposed tohave what reaction? I am too bored to be amused by how passionately you argue for life while completely denying women their humanity. (Of course masked with much "rationality" and cool-headed logic to hide your hysteria on this issue). Please read lulu17's comments. She should just be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, right? Sorry I didn't offer any objective, well-informed, cross-cultural analysis peppered with nifty acronyms. I am just a "host", though, so you'll cut me some slack, right? [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] » Above comment was supposed to be under the "Morality thread" Posted by: philame Home Top Stories Special Coverage Columnists Discuss Donate Syndication About Us Advertise Reproduction of material from any AlterNet pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. © 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.