Reading “The Man In The White Sharkskin Suit,” by Lucette Lagnado

I just fin­ished read­ing The Man in the White Sharksin Suit: My Family’s Exo­dus from Old Cairo to the New World, by Lucette Lagnado, a reporter for The Wall Street Jour­nal whom we have invited to read as part of Nas­sau Com­mu­nity College’s Lit­er­a­ture, Live! read­ing series, spon­sored by The Cre­ative Writ­ing Project (CWP). A mem­oir that is at once a love let­ter to her father, Leon, and also her mother, Edith, as well as to the city of Cairo and its way of life in the days of King Farouk, The Man in the White Sharksin Suit chron­i­cles the dif­fi­cul­ties Lagnado’s fam­ily faced as they nav­i­gated the often tor­tu­ous path they were forced to travel from the priv­i­leged life they enjoyed in Egypt to the dif­fi­cult and, espe­cially for her father, often humil­i­at­ing exis­tence that life as exiles forced them into. The book has a lot to say about the arro­gance with which Euro­pean and Amer­i­can Jews – as indi­vid­u­als and as work­ers in agen­cies that were sup­posed to help fam­i­lies such as Lagnado’s – treated their Mizrachi core­li­gion­ists, who fled or were forced to leave their home coun­tries in the years fol­low­ing Israel’s found­ing; and when she tells the story of Sylvia Kirschner, the New York Asso­ci­a­tion for New Amer­i­cans (NYANA) case­worker assigned to the Lagnado fam­ily, and how Kirschner refused to find any com­pro­mise between her pro­gres­sive val­ues relat­ing to women and Lagnado’s father’s deeply patri­ar­chal old world val­ues, it is hard not to sym­pa­thize with Leon. Not because there is any­thing defen­si­ble in his desire com­pletely to rule the lives of the women in his fam­ily, but because Lagnado makes it so clear that Sylvia Kirschner’s intol­er­ance only served to accel­er­ate the unrav­el­ing of the Lagnado fam­ily by encour­ag­ing the inde­pen­dence of Lagando’s older sis­ter Suzette. I’m not sug­gest­ing that Suzette should have allowed her­self to remain firmly held in place beneath her father’s patri­ar­chal thumb, but surely there were gen­tler ways of intro­duc­ing Leon and Suzette to the greater inde­pen­dence of women in the United States than Kirschner’s dis­missal of and dis­re­spect for the val­ues Leon had brought with him from an older gen­er­a­tion in a far more tra­di­tional part of the world.

There are many other moments in this mem­oir that are wor­thy of note – the Ital­ian Catholic friend Lagnado found and lost because of a hous­ing dis­pute between their par­ents and the neighborhood’s anti­se­mitic response to that dis­pute; the con­trast Lagnado draws between her expe­ri­ence being treated for Hodgkin’s dis­ease by a pri­vate physi­cian in New York City and her father’s dis­mal treat­ment at the Jew­ish Home and Hos­pi­tal, and then at Mt. Sinai Hos­pi­tal, in the last years of his life (and each of these con­trasted with the med­ical treat­ment the fam­ily had been able to com­mand when they lived in Egypt, and Leon could sum­mon the best doc­tors in Cairo to look after him and his fam­ily); Lagnado’s meet­ing with the woman whose father-in-law and uncle had nego­ti­ated the pur­chase of the Lagnado fam­ily home when Leon finally, reluc­tantly, real­ized he and his fam­ily could no longer remain in Egypt – but what struck me most as I read this book was how much it hinted at things I didn’t know about Mizrachi Jews. Leon’s fam­ily was from Aleppo, in Syria, and Lagnado’s dis­cus­sion of that culture’s fam­ily tra­di­tions left me frus­trated that I had never learned about them when I was in Hebrew School, or later when I was in yeshiva, and it was ham­mered into us that kol yis­rael are­vim zeh lazeh, all Jews are respon­si­ble for each other. That lofty sen­ti­ment notwith­stand­ing, the cur­ricu­lum we were taught cer­tainly made it seem like the only Jews in the world, or at least the only Jews in the world that mat­tered, were those of Euro­pean, and espe­cially east­ern Euro­pean, descent.

It’s not that I didn’t know Mizrachi Jews existed, and I cer­tainly can­not blame my con­tem­po­rary igno­rance on the faulty edu­ca­tion of my youth. After all, noth­ing has stopped me from edu­cat­ing myself other than the way I have set the pri­or­i­ties of my life (and it’s entirely pos­si­ble that I would not have picked Lagnado’s book up except that the CWP has cho­sen to invite her), but so much of my early Jew­ish edu­ca­tion was focused on Israel – the need for Israel, the value of Israel, the strug­gle to found Israel – that it’s sur­pris­ing I remem­ber no atten­tion being paid to the fact that, after Israel’s inde­pen­dence was declared in 1948, nearly a mil­lion Mizrachi Jews were either forced to leave their coun­tries or chose to leave because the con­di­tions there had become unten­able. Surely learn­ing about Israel ought to have meant learn­ing some­thing about the cul­ture of the mil­lions of Mizrachi Jews who chose to set­tle there. Equally sur­pris­ing to me is that nowhere in Lagnado’s mem­oir is Israel men­tioned except as either a pri­mary cause of the prob­lems the Jews of Egypt were start­ing to have after 1948 or as one the places where the Jews of Egypt could go that would accept them with­out fail. Lagnado does not laud Israel as the Jew­ish home­land, nor is there any sense from her book that the Jews of Egypt saw Israel in that way at all; even when she talks about the Egypt­ian Jews who chose to go to Israel, she presents the choice as matter-of-fact, even as des­per­ate, not as one that might con­tain within it some small part of the hope with which the Euro­pean Zion­ists clearly embraced the idea of a Jew­ish home­land there.

The Man in the White Shark­skin Suit, how­ever, is a mem­oir, not a his­tory. I am sure that there were Mizrachi Jews who embraced the found­ing of Israel as fer­vently and hope­fully as the Euro­pean Zion­ists did. More, I am sure that the feel­ing I had after read­ing Lagnado’s book, that the Jews of Egypt were far bet­ter off in Egypt than in any of the places to which they fled, has more to do with the priv­i­leged life her fam­ily lived there than with the real­ity of the lives of all Egypt­ian Jews. I am fully aware, in other words, that the story of the Mizrachi Jews is, has got to be, far more com­plex than any­thing I could learn from read­ing Lagnado’s mem­oir; and yet read­ing the book, espe­cially the chap­ter called “The Last Days of Tar­boosh,” brought me back to a trans­la­tion con­fer­ence panel I was on with Ammiel Alcalay and Sami Chetrit, a Mizrachi Jew (Moroc­can, if I remem­ber cor­rectly). Dur­ing his talk Chetrit spoke of how – and I am para­phras­ing here; I wish I could remem­ber his exact words – the Euro­pean Zion­ist Jews col­o­nized the Mizrachi Jews, replac­ing the Mizrachi nar­ra­tive with the Euro­pean Jew­ish nar­ra­tive, even to the point of usurp­ing the language(s) Mizrachi Jews had been speak­ing for cen­turies, if not mil­lenia, before Israel was founded. (I am not sure if this was a ref­er­ence to the European-based revival of Hebrew as the Jew­ish national lan­guage or to some other con­flict over lan­guage.) His state­ments sur­prised me in much the same way that read­ing Lagnado’s books did, because they hinted at a story I did not know, that felt like I should have known it.

Like Lagnado, Chetrit obvi­ously has a per­spec­tive, and a bias, and I am in no way informed enough to judge the accu­racy of what he said. What I can say is that any Jew­ish edu­ca­tion worth its salt should have as one of its goals mak­ing its stu­dents that informed, or at least teach­ing them that they should feel respon­si­ble for inform­ing them­selves; and that most cer­tainly is not the Jew­ish edu­ca­tion I received. Indeed, the Jew­ish edu­ca­tion I received ren­dered both Chetrit’s per­spec­tive and Lagnado’s story entirely invis­i­ble, and it did so not only in the inter­est of mak­ing Israel cen­tral to Jewish-American iden­tity, but also to estab­lish­ing the Zion­ist nar­ra­tive of the found­ing of Israel as the uni­ver­sal Jew­ish nar­ra­tive of the found­ing of Israel. Sto­ries like Chetrit’s and Lagnado’s demon­strate that such uni­ver­sal­ity is a myth. Con­fronting that myth is impor­tant not because it calls into ques­tion Israel’s right to exist (it makes me angry that I feel I even have to say that) but because com­ing to terms with the full com­plex­ity of the nar­ra­tive of Israel’s found­ing is the only way I know to come to terms with the fact that I, as a Jew – and maybe this applies to con­cerned peo­ple who aren’t Jew­ish as well – can­not not take a posi­tion regard­ing Israel’s exis­tence as a Jew­ish state.

(I’ve writ­ten more about this issue in the series I wrote called What We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) When We Talk About (And Don’t Talk About) anti­semitism and Israel. The link will take you to part 4 of the series; there is a list of the other posts in the series at the bot­tom of that post.)

Lucette Lagnado’s read­ing at Nas­sau Com­mu­nity Col­lege is sched­uled for March 2010, date and time to be announced. For more infor­ma­tion, please visit the Cre­ative Writ­ing Project web­site.

Talk about a goyishe kop!

I saw this on Fem­i­niste:

CRESAPTOWN, Md. (AP) — You’ve heard of kosher salt? Now there’s a Chris­t­ian variety.

Retired bar­ber Joe Godlewski says that when tele­vi­sion chefs rec­om­mended kosher salt in recipes, he won­dered, “What the heck’s the mat­ter with Chris­t­ian salt?”

By next week, his trade­marked Blessed Chris­tians Salt will be avail­able from sea­son­ings man­u­fac­turer Ingre­di­ents Cor­po­ra­tion of Amer­ica. It’s sea salt that’s been blessed by an Epis­co­pal priest.

The company’s pres­i­dent hopes to mar­ket the salt through Chris­t­ian bookstores.

Go here to read the rest.

Cross-posted on Alas.

Iran Outs Harry Potter as a Member of the World Zionist Conspiracy

Late last month, the Daily News pub­lished this arti­cle: Harry Pot­ter part of Zion­ist con­spir­acy, Iran­ian film claims. The ridicu­lous­ness of the video speaks for itself, and so, except for a cou­ple of points that I think bear mak­ing, I am loathe to spend too much time respond­ing to the analy­ses and accu­sa­tions the Iran­ian so-called experts make:

  1. Note the sub­tle (and not so sub­tle) con­fla­tion of Jews with Zion­ists throughout.
  2. Note as well the ref­er­ence to the idea of Jew­ish racial supremacy, which the film attrib­utes to the Zion­ists in a way that – at least as I read the trans­la­tion – could be read to sug­gest that the Jews (and not just the mem­bers of the pur­ported global Zion­ist con­spir­acy) do indeed believe in our own racial superiority.
  3. Note the por­trayal of Judaism as a reli­gion of witch­craft and wiz­ardry, a trope that has a long his­tory in Euro­pean antisemitism.
  4. Note the men­tion of Chris­t­ian Zion­ists, which I con­fess I almost missed. It’s inter­est­ing to think about the sig­nif­i­cance of that men­tion in light of the dis­cus­sion of Chris­t­ian Zion­ism in part one my anti­semtism series.

There are, I am sure, other things worth point­ing out. Please have at it.


“I Meant To Say Zionists, Not Jews” — Poor, Misunderstood Fatima Hajaig Adds Insult to Injury

I learned about Hajaig’s “apology” almost simul­ta­ne­ously from two dif­fer­ent places. Here is the full text as reported by Z Word Blog:

I have just returned from a visit to Japan and learnt of the con­tro­versy sur­round­ing some com­ments that I was pur­ported to have made. I have reviewed the pro­ceed­ings of the meet­ing and wish to say, to state the fol­low­ing: Through­out my life I have been opposed to apartheid and all forms of racism. It is this oppo­si­tion that drove me into exile and to work with the African National Con­gress for decades. Along with all in the ANC and con­sis­tent with the recent res­o­lu­tions adopted at our Polok­wane con­fer­ence in Decem­ber 2007, I have long been cog­nisant of the immense suf­fer­ing the Pales­tini­ans have expe­ri­enced in the form of expul­sions, col­lec­tive pun­ish­ment and mas­sacres, of which the recent war in Gaza is but the lat­est exam­ple. It is to this suf­fer­ing that I spoke at the meet­ing. I deplore the attempts of Zion­ists to jus­tify poli­cies that have wors­ened the cri­sis in the Mid­dle East, in par­tic­u­lar unmit­i­gated state vio­lence directed against unarmed civil­ians as much as I deplore indis­crim­i­nate attacks against Israeli unarmed civilians.

At a sin­gu­lar point in my talk, and entirely unre­lated to any South African com­mu­nity, I con­flated Zion­ist pres­sure with Jew­ish influ­ence. I regret the infer­ence made by some that I am anti-Jewish. I do not believe that the cause of the Pales­tini­ans is served by any anti-Jewish racism. As a mem­ber of the South African gov­ern­ment and a com­mit­ted mem­ber of the African National Con­gress, I sub­scribe to the val­ues and prin­ci­ples of non-racism and con­demn with­out equiv­o­ca­tion all forms of racism, includ­ing anti­semitism in all its man­i­fes­ta­tions and wher­ever it may occur.

To the extent that my state­ment may have caused hurt and pain, I offer an unequiv­o­cal apol­ogy for the pain it may have caused to the peo­ple of our coun­try and the Jew­ish com­mu­nity in par­tic­u­lar. I wish to reit­er­ate that the major issue in rela­tion to the Pales­tin­ian Israel con­flict is the enor­mous suf­fer­ing of the Pales­tin­ian peo­ple and the strug­gle for peace for all its’ peo­ple based on jus­tice and secu­rity for Israelis and Pales­tini­ans alike.

As Deputy Min­is­ter of For­eign Affairs, I reaf­firm the government’s com­mit­ment to engage all par­ties in Israel and Pales­tine to find an ami­ca­ble and just res­o­lu­tion to the con­flict in that region.

There is no need for me to go through this point by point, since both David Schraub and Z Word Blog do a fine job. I want to empha­size one thing that they each allude to but don’t say quite this way. When Hajaig finally gets around to her apol­ogy, she makes the fol­low­ing state­ment, “At a sin­gu­lar point in my talk, and entirely unre­lated to any South African com­mu­nity, I con­flated Zion­ist pres­sure with Jew­ish influ­ence.” It’s not, in other words, that there is no such thing as “Jew­ish influ­ence.” The prob­lem is that she, this time, inac­cu­rately con­flated it with “Zion­ist pres­sure.” If you wanted a clearer exam­ple, in the antisemite’s own words, of how anti-Zionism is all too often used as a cloak for anti­semitism, you’d be hard pressed top find one. Then she has the audac­ity to say, though of course she also has to say or the whole exer­cise of her apol­ogy would be mean­ing­less, that she “regret[s] the infer­ence made by some that I am anti-Jewish,” show­ing that she is far more con­cerned for her own rep­u­ta­tion than for the feel­ings of the peo­ple to whom she is osten­si­bly apologizing. 

A final note. Take a look at how the story was reported on AfricaA​sia​.com:

South Africa’s deputy for­eign min­is­ter apol­o­gised Tues­day for a speech in which she said “Jew­ish money” con­trols the United States.

“To the extent that my state­ment may have caused hurt and pain, I offer an unequiv­o­cal apol­ogy for the pain it may have caused to the peo­ple of our coun­try, and the Jew­ish com­mu­nity in par­tic­u­lar,” Fatima Hajaig said in a statement.

Hajaig told a polit­i­cal rally in Johan­nes­burg last month that Jews “con­trol Amer­ica, no mat­ter which gov­ern­ment comes into power, whether Repub­li­can or Demo­c­ra­tic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush.”

“Their con­trol of Amer­ica, just like the con­trol of most west­ern coun­tries, is in the hands of Jew­ish money,” she said.

Out­raged by the remarks, the South African Jew­ish Board of Deputies — a civil rights group — said it filed a com­plaint against Hajaig at the human rights commission.

“Through­out my life I have been opposed to apartheid and all forms of racism. It is this oppo­si­tion that drove me into exile and to work with the African National Con­gress for decades,” the min­is­ter said.

“At a sin­gu­lar point in my talk, and entirely unre­lated to any South African com­mu­nity, I con­flated Zion­ist pres­sure with Jew­ish influ­ence. I regret the infer­ence made by some, that I am anti-Jewish. I do not believe that the cause of the Pales­tini­ans is served by anti-Jewish racism,” she added.

I just find it telling that the shap­ing of the story makes, or at least tries to make Hajaig sound not only like she is sin­cerely apol­o­giz­ing, but also like she really under­stands the mean­ing of her own words when she says that “the cause of the Pales­tini­ans is [not] served by anti-Jewish racism.“

If You’ve Been Reading My antisemitism Posts, You Must Read This

I read about this first on David Schraub’s blog:

They in fact con­trol [Amer­ica]. No mat­ter which gov­ern­ment comes in to power, whether Repub­li­can or Demo­c­ra­tic, whether Barack Obama or George Bush. The con­trol of Amer­ica, just like the con­trol of most West­ern coun­tries, is in the hands of Jew­ish money and if Jew­ish money con­trols their coun­try then you can­not expect any­thing else.

That state­ment was made by South African Deputy For­eign Min­is­ter Fatima Hajaig, at a Pales­tin­ian “sol­i­dar­ity” rally. Read the rest of David’s post and more here and here.

I am rush­ing out the door, but I think the con­nec­tion to what I have been writ­ing about, not to men­tion what David has been say­ing on his blog about this issue, will be self-evident.

Edited to add: I am almost done with the fourth anti­semitism post; it’s been hard to work on it con­sis­tently now that school has started, but it’s just about there.

Update 1÷31÷09: The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Ms. Hajaig “has been taken before [South Africa’s] human rights body for allegedly say­ing that “Jew­ish money” con­trols the United States, offi­cials said Thursday.”

And one more update: Things in Venezuela are worse than in South Africa, much worse.

Sharing Stories of antisemitism

I posted over at Alas with the idea that it would be inter­est­ing if peo­ple, Jews and non-Jews alike, were to tell sto­ries about their expe­ri­ences with anti­semitism. Here is what I wrote:

Read­ing through the com­ments gen­er­ated by my two posts (here and here) on anti­semitism so far has got­ten me think­ing about how many of us – Jew­ish or not, but espe­cially Jew­ish – ever really talk about our expe­ri­ences with anti­semitism, not in the con­text of argu­ing a point about the Palestinian-Israeli con­flict or of any other issue that is not, sim­ply, an asser­tion of the fact that anti­semitism exists and that it has real con­se­quences in Jew­ish (and non-Jewish) lives. I know that the first post I wrote was the first time ever that I tried to con­struct a chronol­ogy, a nar­ra­tive of the anti­semitism I have expe­ri­enced in my life, and it brought home to me all over again just how enor­mous and pro­found an effect it had on my world­view, not all of which I wrote about in the sec­ond post, since my focus in those posts is really quite spe­cific. I was moved when AndiF chose to share her/his (sorry, I real­ize I don’t know) expe­ri­ences from a gen­er­a­tion before me, and I was inter­ested to read some other people’s expe­ri­ences from the gen­er­a­tions after me. So here’s what I pro­pose: a post where the point of the com­ments is, sim­ply, to tell sto­ries about our expe­ri­ences with anti­semitism, not to ana­lyze those expe­ri­ences, but just to tell them and then let them speak for them­selves. I am not talk­ing about polit­i­cal analy­sis of some politician’s or scholar’s or blog posts’ rhetoric, and I am not talk­ing about list­ing anti­se­mitic inci­dents at which you were not present. I am talk­ing about moments when you saw or expe­ri­enced anti­semitism in action.

I am not going to limit this post to Jews, because I think it’s impor­tant to hear from non-Jews about their expe­ri­ences, but it is my plan to delete any com­ment that is not a story. (I am not going to make that an absolute rule, since there are always excep­tions, but it is my plan.)

Let’s see what kind of col­lec­tive story our indi­vid­ual sto­ries com­bine to tell.

I think it would be great if all of you who are read­ing my blog would head on over to this post on Alas and tell a story or two, if you have them.

The Dangers Of Trying To Talk About The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in the Absence of Substantive Historical Context

Take a look.

The issue for me is not the pic­tures per se – though the absence of con­text is a prob­lem there too. There are fright­en­ing par­al­lels, that even some Holo­caust sur­vivors I have read about have noticed, between some of the ways the Israeli gov­ern­ment has treated the Pales­tini­ans and the ways in which the Nazis treated the Jews. The dan­gers I am talk­ing about become more evi­dent in the com­ments.

The Babies, by Sabrina Orah Mark

The Babies The Babies by Sab­rina Orah Mark


My review

rat­ing: 5 of 5 stars
A won­der­ful book of prose poems. This is what I wrote on one of the pages in the book. I will make no claims that it is accu­rate, but it records part of my expe­ri­ence of the work: “Each per­cep­tion con­tains every other pos­si­ble per­cep­tion and it’s a mat­ter of choos­ing what to con­nect to what, and all the impli­ca­tions of those choices are con­tained in each choice, and orches­trat­ing all these choices is a con­scious­ness that has been through a dis­ori­ent­ing trauma.…” That trauma is very much con­nected to the Shoah, though the Shoah is not men­tioned specif­i­cally by name, as far as I remem­ber, which makes the book that much more powerful.

View all my reviews.

I am pro-choice because I oppose slavery

blog_button_2007.jpgI have been think­ing for a few days now about how to answer this ques­tion, not because the answer is dif­fi­cult, but because all of the answers that spring most eas­ily to mind have more to do with per­sonal sto­ries that I have no doubt are essen­tially no dif­fer­ent from all the other per­sonal sto­ries that men and women who are pro-choice can tell about why they are, or why they became, pro-choice: women in their lives who, for what­ever reasons, desperately needed to have abor­tions; women who died from botched ille­gal abor­tions; women whose lives were ruined because they did not have access to safe, legal abor­tions; and so on. It’s not that these sto­ries are unim­por­tant; they are vitally impor­tant, and telling and retelling them is vitally impor­tant as well. The choir does need to be preached to on occa­sion; remind­ing our­selves of the real peo­ple in whose bod­ies the issue of women’s repro­duc­tive choice takes its most imme­di­ate and irre­ducible form is essen­tial. Not only are there a lot of peo­ple out there who would like the lives of those women, of their born and poten­tial chil­dren and of the men with whom those chil­dren were con­ceived to mat­ter less than the ide­ol­ogy which says that ensoul­ment takes place at the moment of con­cep­tion, but imag­in­ing the kind of world that full repro­duc­tive choice would make pos­si­ble requires us to be true to the lives of those people.

As impor­tantly, though, telling the sto­ries that make us pro-choice is a way of mak­ing sure that those who are not do not con­trol the dis­course, are not able to hide the lives of actual women — and their born and poten­tial chil­dren, and the men who helped con­ceive those chil­dren — behind ide­al­ized images of the so-called “unborn chil­dren” that they claim are mur­dered in geno­ci­dal pro­por­tions mer­it­ing the label holo­caust when abor­tions are per­formed. In my own work, I have tried to tell some of these sto­ries in the poems that I write. The Silence Of Men, my first book of poems, con­tains two poems that tell these kinds of sto­ries. I wrote them after read­ing Back Rooms: Voice From The Ille­gal Abor­tion Era, a book that is worth get­ting, espe­cially if, like me, you are young enough that you do not remem­ber the time before Roe vs. Wade, when abor­tion was ille­gal. These are the poems:

Melissa’s Story

The doc­tor gave instruc­tions like a spy:
Be there, seven pm, on the dot.
If you’re not, I’m gone. Don’t even think about
another appoint­ment. Got it? That day,
of course, there was traf­fic, and the money
had to be in small, old bills. You will get
in my car as if we were lovers. At the spot,
you’ll step out first. Walk when and where I say.
Make a mis­take and I leave. Under­stood?
I did. Some­how it went with­out a snag,
and there I was, legs open on a bed,
with a man crouched between them like a dog.

He reached into me and scraped away the life
I’d almost made, not yet mine to give.

And here is the sec­ond one: 

Bill’s Story

He talked about her like she was a boat.
You just loaded the ship, son. Where the wind
takes it is out of your hands, hear? She’ll find
a port to dock in. Just be glad you got
what you wanted with­out get­ting shot.
Her par­ents were no bet­ter, as if I’d planned
to make her preg­nant. We begged them not to send
her away. Once she was gone, they moved out.

Not long after the birth-month, her sin­gle
let­ter came: I named him Bill. Then they took him.
Years later, I drove to where the post­mark
pointed. No one would speak to me. I still
hope, though. My son is old enough to look,
and I deserve to tell him who I am.

I think about these sto­ries, and I think about my own mother’s story, which I heard not from, but from my father, who told it to me more than thirty years after the two of them first sep­a­rated. Actu­ally, though, he didn’t really tell me the story, in the sense of pro­vid­ing any of the actual details of what went on between them. What he told me more the Cliff Notes ver­sion: he and my mother ended up get­ting mar­ried because she was preg­nant with me. This was in 1962, before abor­tion became legal, and she, he said, would not even think about get­ting one. Mar­ry­ing her, he decided, was the right thing to do, and I guess she agreed, though their mar­riage lasted barely five years, dur­ing which time my mother gave birth to my brother — about 20 months sep­a­rate our births — whom my father said was an accident.

My mother’s story does not end there. She had two other chil­dren, my twin sisters, with her sec­ond hus­band, who left us when they were around six — thought that is a part of the story I will not tell here — and while I will not say that my mother regrets hav­ing us, I will say, and I know this to be a fact, that the chil­dren my mother had made her life incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult, not just because each of the men with whom she con­cieved us was not around to help, financially and oth­er­wise, with rais­ing us, but because — and this had to be espe­cially true of my own, unin­tended birth — hav­ing chil­dren, by def­i­n­i­tion, nar­rowed the pos­si­bil­i­ties of my mother’s life and forced her to har­ness what­ever ener­gies she might have devoted else­where to being a mother, and a sin­gle mother with four chil­dren at that.

I do not know whether, had abor­tion been legal and eas­ily avail­able, my mother would have cho­sen to abort the fetus that even­tu­ally became the man who is writ­ing this today, and on some level I don’t really care. I am here; she made the choice she made; and if she had made a dif­fer­ent choice back then it would have had noth­ing to do with who I am now and who I have been to her as a son for the past 45 years. She might even­tu­ally have had chil­dren; she might not. The point is that her life would have been her own, which is pre­cisely what it was not the moment she decided, for what­ever rea­son, to carry me to term, and because her deci­sion to carry me to term meant decid­ing that her life was no longer wholly her own, had that choice been imposed upon her, had the con­di­tion of becom­ing my mother been some­thing she had no choice but to accept (and I am except­ing here the choice she might have had to kill her­self), then that con­di­tion, it seems to me, would be a form of enslavement.

And that, finally, is why I am pro-choice: because I oppose enslave­ment in any form, and that answer, I think, is what ele­vates sto­ry­telling above preach­ing to the choir or merely argu­ing on a point-by-point basis with the oppo­si­tion, as valu­able as those activ­i­ties are, because if you under­tand a world empty of women’s repro­duc­tive choice to be a world in which women are enslaved, not merely to their own bod­ies and biol­ogy, but to the state because of the inter­ests the state has in polic­ing women’s bod­ies and biol­ogy—and make no mis­take: any place where repro­duc­tive choice is not legally avail­able to women is a place where it has been leg­is­lated away because the state has an inter­est in har­ness­ing women per­ma­nently to their repro­duc­tive biol­ogy—if you under­stand that, then you under­stand that women’s repro­duc­tive choice is an issue not merely of how we value women’s human­ity, though women’s human­ity is the pri­mary focus here, but that it is a mat­ter of how we value human­ity period.

A cou­ple of other posts on this blog that may be of interest: