Reykjavík Grapevine - 09.03.2012, Síða 23

BODY-pOLICE BRUTALITY
23
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 3 — 2012
Opinion | Rebecca Louder
THE NUMBER 1 MUSIC STORE
IN EUROPE ACCORDING TO
LONELY PLANET
SKÓLAVÖRÐUSTÍG 15, 101 REYKJAVÍK AND HARPA CONCERT HALL
Taste the freshness
of a farmer’s market
Housed in one of the city’s oldest buildings, Fish
Market uses ingredients sourced directly from
the nation’s best farms, lakes, and sea to create
unforgettable Icelandic dishes with a modern twist.
AÐALSTRÆTI 12 | +354 578 8877 | FISHMARKET.IS
2008
GO LIST
OPEN FOR LUNCH WEEKDAYS 11:30 - 14:00
OPEN EVERY EVENING 18:00 - 23:30
parliament and can even dismiss parliament
and form a government.
The Constitution is, however, very un-
clear on these points, for it also says that a
government minister wields the power of the
president. A Constitutional Council has been
working on rewriting the constitution, and
the outcome is still unclear but it is interest-
ing that its proposals are in line with Ólafur
Ragnar’s interpretation of the president’s
role as a balance to the parliament and gov-
ernment.
One question that might be partly an-
swered in the elections is whether we will
go back to the days of having an apolitical,
symbolic president, less divisive than Ólafur
Ragnar. Many of the possible candidates
who have been named would fall into that
category. They are proper, well respected
people, who wouldn’t rock any boat. It is
certain that much of the political class would
like to have such a president again.
WILL HE WIN AGAIN?
To some has become impossibly full of him-
self, referring to himself as a manifestation
of the nation’s will—a term he often uses—
talking about himself in the third person, and
constantly stating what a big man he is out-
side of Iceland. Ólafur will be 70 next year,
but he still seems to be full of energy. It will
be interesting to see where his long political
journey is heading.
In all likelihood the Independence Party
will take power in Iceland next year. Among
its ranks Ólafur Ragnar has earned some
grudging respect, but it has always been the
view of the party that the president should
stay in his place and obey. Old hatreds might
flare up again if Ólafur is re-elected and
keeps on improvising with his presidential
powers.
Some of his former left-wing friends
might even think it worthwhile to vote for
him to see the conservatives wrestling with
his rather inflated ego. Time will tell.
Continued from page 6
THE LONG pOLITICAL JOURNEY OF ÓLAFUR RAGNAR GRÍMSSON
In the last issue of The
Grapevine appeared
an opinion piece en-
titled ‘WHY I BOTHER,
PT. IV’ by Hildur Lil-
liendahl dealing with
the topic of altruistic surrogacy and the
Icelandic Parliament’s preparation to
pass legislation in favour of it. The writ-
er’s opinions were strongly opposed to
this act and this opposition is based
upon morals and personal beliefs. As a
feminist of countering opinions to this, I
will tell you why I, too, bother.
First of all, for those who missed it,
altruistic surrogacy is an act wherein
a reproductively-able woman consen-
sually provides the service of carrying
and giving birth to a child for a non-
reproductively capable couple with no
monetary gain beyond occupational
and medical expenses. It is an agree-
ment that is made between parties of
sound body and mind, which have to
undergo extensive medical and psy-
chological examinations prior to the act
of insemination, not to mention deliv-
ery.
The previously mentioned author
states that surrogacy simply reduces
a woman to a baby machine. I, on the
other hand, contend that de-autono-
misation a woman who chooses to act
as a surrogate and to make choices
for her own body is what is truly ob-
jectifying. By stating that legal surro-
gacy reduces a woman to being a baby
machine, one actually DOES reduce
a woman to being a baby machine; if
one needs ephemeral legislation to de-
termine what a woman is or is not in a
reproductive sense, then the problem
lies within one’s own internalised mi-
sogyny.
Not permitting surrogacy to legally
exist does not empower women to
make sound choices for their bodies,
but removes their options by implying
that they don’t know any better. It mini-
mises, dehumanises and condescends
to grown women who are independent
thinkers as well as owners of a uterus.
It reasserts the patriarchal notion that
women cannot be trusted to make their
own decisions when it comes to their
bodies.
Furthermore, the article went on
to compare altruistic surrogacy to the
acts of prostitution and rape. As far
as the latter goes, I would like to once
again remind that by definition, altru-
istic surrogacy requires conscientious
and enthusiastic consent, which is the
completely opposite of what rape is.
Speaking as a rape survivor myself,
the comparison of the two is an appall-
ing and dangerous line to cross, and
is grossly insulting to both victims of
the violent act of rape and women who
happily engage in surrogacy. There are
in fact hundreds of online surrogacy
communities, advocates and support
networks led by intelligent, healthy,
sound-minded women.
The former, a comparison to pros-
titution, is actually not so far off—and
I mean that in a good way. Like surro-
gates, women who conscientiously and
enthusiastically choose sex work as a
trade are constantly made the targets
of de-autonomisation and victimisation
(see “A Vicious Cycle of Victimisation”
in last Grapevine issue!) and are usu-
ally left out of the political conversa-
tion about their situation. The result of
this detracts from effectively isolating
cases of human trafficking and pros-
ecuting those by globally removing the
rights of women to make choices, par-
ticularly those of marginalised women.
But coming back to the topic at
hand, aside from the surrogate, the ar-
ticle reduced the hypothetical couple
needing a surrogate to “some poor
barren persons.” It is quite easy to be
flippant and disrespectful of the re-
productive situations of others if one
is privileged enough to be a cisgender,
heteronormative, reproductively-able
woman, but it is also very easy to forget
that many couples who seek surrogacy
do not have the reproductive parts to
do so—same-sex couples for example.
Additionally, the moral opinions of such
people are absolutely irrelevant to the
discussion because it literally does
not affect them. It’s basically just like
the ridiculous United States Congres-
sional hearing on female contracep-
tion that took place earlier this month
wherein the entire panel was made up
of heterosexual men—several of them
priests! Jesus Christ...
Seeking the option of surrogacy
does not denote entitlement, but rather
the ability to explore a number of ways
in which reproductive technology has
advanced and allows people to help
each other, if they so choose. The Ice-
landic Parliament enacting legislation
that allows altruistic surrogacy does
not imply that anyone will even use it,
but more importantly does not force it
upon anyone.
Ultimately, if one truly cares about
encouraging stronger relationships be-
tween body and mind, one must first
begin by respecting the bodies and
minds of others as their own and not
imposing morality upon each other.
Stop the body-police brutality.
NOT YOUR UTERUS? NOT YOUR BUSINESS!