Dr. Patrick Johnson is the director of Personhood Ohio, “an organization committed [to] the restoring the personhood rights of unborn children through an amendment to the Ohio constitution.”
In case you are wondering if a woman is a person in Johnson’s intolerant mind, here is the Personhood Ohio argument against abortion:
The Ohio constitution states the following:
Article 1, Section 1: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.
Article 1, Section 16: All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.
Thus (according to Personhood Ohio):
The Ohio Personhood Amendment will insert Section 16(b):
“Person” and “men” defined:
(A) The words “person” in Article 1, Section 16, and “men” in Article 1, Section 1, apply to every human being at every stage of the biological development of that human being or human organism, including fertilization.
Apparently if one gives constitutional rights to defend life and liberty and obtain happiness and safety to fertilized eggs but not women, then we have personhood. Because everyone knows that women are not people.
In any case, Johnson has a new obsession, and that is preventing children and married men from seeing women’s breasts. here is another area in which a woman’s breast becomes separate from the human breast. All people have nipples and breast tissue.
There are innumerable arguments about the sexualization of women’s breasts being a social construction. Here are a few points:
In many indigenous societies, women go topless as a matter of course, and the exposure of breasts is incidental to existing. Here is a woman farming in Cameroon:
In the Victorian era, when women’s sexuality was repressed and showing an ankle was scandalous, breastfeeding was a sign of mothering, which was not considered sexual. Thus, the ankle, not the breast, was sexualized:
Throughout history, Mary, who was so desexualized that many worship her as a virgin, has been depicted breastfeeding with exposed breasts:
And going topless on the beach is typical for women of all ages and sizes in much of Europe (not just for the stereotypically sexy).
Yet we have worked Americans into such a tizzy about human women’s breasts that I once had a class of fifth graders completely freak out when exposed to this image:
This is just black lines. The person represented doesn’t even have a face. Yet the very idea of a breast is somehow outrageous. It is somewhat like thinking one must dress a zucchini in a burquah. Or like the Shel Silverstein poem about putting a bra on camel humps.
Men have breasts, and while people might not like to see them when they are large, they can be exposed with no one challenging the legality of exposure:
Yet a flat chested women’s breast are somehow obscene:
Women’s and men’s breasts are not particularly different. It is actually possible for men to breastfeed. Seriously. There’s even a very short, highly amusing movie about it, “Milk Men,” which you can watch here.
But preventing women from exposing their breasts, particularly when exposure is incidental to breastfeeding, is a way to have men define women’s sexuality and thus demand to control women’s bodies. When people tell women to cover up, sit in toilet stalls, or stay home because they are feeding babies, they are telling women that they cannot be female in public. They are privileging certain people’s perceptions of a woman’s body over the actual woman in that body.
People have nipples. Everyone is born with them. It is not an exciting concept:
Can you even be certain which of these belong to women and which to men?
Then whose body will you know to control?