I am going to repeat a radical argument made by Monique Wittig: we should break the heterosexual social contract.
My initial reaction to this statement? How would society function? But the very idea that society needs to be bound by the social contract of heterosexuality as we know it is what Wittig problematizes. After seeing articles like this one, I am becoming more and more convinced that perhaps we should revolt against a social contract which insists on appropriating our bodies for production and reproduction. The gist of the article in the Wall Street Journal is this: pro-lifers, or anti-choicers (I quite prefer this term) seek to take away public funds from Planned Parenthood. Their argument is that Planned Parenthood spends too much money on abortions (it is the nation’s largest provider of abortions), and in times of dire financial straits, funds should be taken away from this group towards more economically needy organizations. Planned Parenthood counters with the argument that especially in this time, when people are losing health care benefits, their services are that much more to the public.
The ambit of Planned Parenthood’s services supersede the provision of abortions. Indeed, abortions are only 3% of the services they provide, the majority of their work being directed towards making contraception and STI testing available. In instances when funds have been withdrawn from the organization, sex-education and teen pregnancy prevention programs have ended, or been greatly altered due to lack of funds.
The anti-choicers must surely realize that by cutting funds from Planned Parenthood, they take away certain liberties from those who use the organizations services. 38% of Planned Parenthood’s services is the provision of contraception, which help prevent unwanted pregnancy and thus eliminate the need for abortions.
If the provision of contraception is limited, where does that leave us in terms of our sexual choices? This is where Wittig’s point about breaking the social contract comes into play. What does the Family Research Council’s position have to do with breaking the heterosexual contract? Jill over at feministe.com puts it best:
…there is a greater cultural war being waged here, and it has little to do with whether abortion ends a life or not. It’s more about women’s place in society and the family, and female autonomy generally. In the far-right ideal, men are breadwinners and heads of households, and women are baby-makers, housekeepers and helpmeets.
If women (and men) realize the economic and exploitation that we as women undergo, and rebel against it, the agenda of groups such as Family Research Council will be severely undermined. The heterosexual social contract reduces women to sexual beings, useful in so far as they continue to reproduce for the sustenance of the heterosexual society. Family Research Council seeks to maintain the suppression of women by taking away their choice to reproduce. Despite the advances women have achieved in society, the institution of the heterosexual contract (which operates on the subjugation of the class of women) as the basis of our society deters further progress. We see this fact clearly when organizations such as the Family Research Council seeks to limit the reproductive rights of women, “for the good of society.”
I’m not exactly sure how you would “break the heterosexual contract.” Are you suggesting that feminist women (and men) refuse to get into heterosexual relationships and/or reproduce until things change? If so, another word for this would be “demographic suicide,” because conservative people and families who see no problems with the “heterosexual social contract” will continue to reproduce and will come to outnumber people who want change.
So that really won’t “undermine” groups such as Family Research Council, especially not in the long run, because the percentage of people who support them will actually go up. Even if some of the kids from conservative families become feminists, the general trend will likely still be in favor of the conservatives.
If I’m misunderstanding you, then what exactly are you suggesting?
Al, it’s not about giving up heterosexual relationships, it’s about not forcing heterosexuality- and one very specific variation of heterosexuality at that- on everybody. Right now, the belief that “men are breadwinners and heads of households, and women are baby-makers, housekeepers and helpmeets” is privileged over other forms of heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships are privileged over homosexual ones. Breaking the heterosexual social contract involves getting rid of this hierarchy- not the right or ability to enter into heterosexual relationships. Regardless of sexuality or sexual behavior, any feminist can argue against a hierarchy that prioritizes reproduction over happiness economic welfare, autonomy, and personal safety & well-being without suggesting that having and raising kids is without value.
Napthia9 took the words right out of my mouth. The heterosexual social contract is one heavily grounded in, and propelled by heternormative standards. Breaking this social contract is tantamount to undermining the social structures that undervalue certain members of society–women, single mothers, members of the working class, etc. It is not a question of ceasing to enter heterosexual relationships, but one of analyzing and restructuring the underlying hegemonic system that prioritizes specific instances of such relationships over all others.