Memo to Bush Appointees: If you are a member of a FDA advisory panel charged with reviewing the safety of over-the-counter emergency contraception, do not boast about a "minority opinion" you wrote[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101812.html (F6 note -- the post to which this post is a reply)], allegedly at the request of the FDA, and take credit for the FDA overruling the panel's overwhelming vote in favor of what is known as Plan B.
And especially don't say during a public sermon, "I argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good."
(It'll make you kind of sound a little freaky.)
At the very least, if you must brag, make sure you're not being videotaped.
And by all means, don't discuss your divorce in your speeches. You might piss off your ex-wife, prompting her to come clean about your screwed-up marriage that includes a history of sexual abuse and marital rape.
You might be disgraced and lose your ... oh, wait, you're a Republican.
I think we have to be careful here not to paint this story about a conservative being hypocritical on "family values." Liberals have been doing that for awhile -- and while it works in the short-term -- it concedes the conservatives the "moral ground" in the long term. We have essentially accepted the conservative "family values" -- at least for the all important rhetorical moment.
What we need to start talking about is the inherent contradictions and immorality within those family values themselves. We need to allow people to see how Hager is -- and this is not to excuse him in any way -- a victim of those values.
Sexual desire needs to be accepted, explored and individuals needs to make their own sexual choices (and have all the reproductive options available to them, obviously). If you want to condemn that desire as evil, you will participate in a classic repression -- which will them force that desire to manifest itself in distorted, often violent, ways.
Whether or not you want to abstain from sex is certainly everyone's choice -- but to deny that sexual desire is a part of our humanity is one of the most damaging sources of evil in our world.
Posted by emma on May 13, 2005 10:29 AM
=====
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue but rather one more scary example of how our country is being taken over by religious fanatics. I may strongly disagree with Hager's position but I am even more appalled by his assertion that it represented God defeating Satan. Call me paranoid but I am becoming increasingly convinced that given the opportunity there are many people in powerful positions who would emulate the Taliban in their treatment of women.
Posted by brian on May 13, 2005 10:45 AM
=====
"Whether or not you want to abstain from sex is certainly everyone's choice -- but to deny that sexual desire is a part of our humanity ..."
Am I reading the same blog entry? I didn't see any mention about abstaining from sex. What I did read in the Nation article is that Dr. Hager basically raped his wife. His "sexual desire" does not include his right to sexually force himself upon on his wife while she was sleeping or to pay her to give him oral sex.
It boggles my mind that anyone would be discussing this in terms of sexual desire rather than sexual abuse. This rapist belongs in jail.
Posted by Le Chat Noir on May 13, 2005 12:43 PM
=====
Le Chat Noir - whoah! You are misreading my comment. When I spoke of "sexual desire" I wasn't referring to Hager, I was referring to women and men in general. I think conservative religious folk like Hager have such a distorted view of sexual desire -- seeing it as sin, etc -- that their attempt to force that view on the nation as a whole is actually immoral. My main point was that liberals needs to take back "morality" from these conservatives -- and start talking about a different type of inclusive, egalitarian morality.
I do think that Hager's own personal behavior is abominable -- but I wanted to point out that it can be seen as an extension of his patriarchal disregard of and, subsequently, violence toward women.
My point, again, is that his "family values" repress genuine sexual desire, which I believe is inherently free and liberating. And his personal life is an example of when you repress that genuine desire, it returns in a screwed up form.
Posted by emma on May 13, 2005 01:55 PM
=====
emma, I agree with you on your point that sexual desire is not a "sin" and shouldn't be viewed that way. Where I think we part ways is the point where you say Hager's personal life is an example of him repressing desire and it returning in a screwed up form.
The way I see it, his personal life is the opposite of that - forcing his sexual desire on his wife, even going so far as to do so while she's not even awake. I just don't see how he is repressing his desire there. Maybe publicly repressing his desire while privately raping his wife?
I also don't believe that genuine sexual desire is "inherently free and liberating". Child molesters have genuine sexual desire and while the desire might be "free and liberating" to the molestor, it is abusive to children. I'm not convinced that child molestation or other abusive sexual desires are the result of "family values" style sexual repression and were we to get rid of that repression then child molestation would end.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that conservative religious views of sexuality as sin are good. I'm just not convinced that all sexual desire is inherently free and liberating, especially if it's nonconsensual and especially in a male supremacist society that often defines sexual desire from the male point of view.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
