While I will always consider myself a feminist, it seems to have been taken over by a pro-abortion stance, with some people claiming that if you are pro-life, you can't be a feminist, as abortion rights is what feminism is about. Yet feminists usually tend to agree that you can be feminist and have a wide array of stances on a wide array of issues. We know that feminists can be sex-positive, sex-negative, pro-porn, anti-porn, pro-BDSM, anti-BDSM, choose to wear makeup, choose to not wear makeup, choose to shave their legs, choose to not shave their legs, choose to wear dresses, choose to not wear dresses, choose to be mothers, choose to never have kids, choose to get married, choose to never get married, choose to be housewives, choose to be career women, more concerned with feminism in the workplace, more concerned with intersectionality, choose to go from a woman's body to a man's body, choose to go from a man's body to a woman's body, feminists who are nerds, feminists who are rockers, feminists who are gamers, feminists who are outdoorsy, feminists who are nudists, feminists who are athletes, feminists who are artists, feminists who are business people, feminists who are mothers, feminists who are stay at home dads, feminists who are of all races, all countries, all faiths and none, all ages, all genders, all sexual orientations, all sizes, all shapes, who have all disabilities, all diseases, all interests, all political ideologies, have to overcome all challenges, feminists who are this and that and the other and everything in between. So why is it different for the abortion stance? You're not letting anyone choose to be pro-life. That's not very "pro-choice." After all, Feminism started off pro-life. Apparently the people who started feminism in the first place, wouldn't be considered feminist by these people. Since they created and defined feminism to begin with, there must not be such a thing as feminism. Feminist pro-lifers aren't going anywhere. There are many pro-life feminist groups. You'll have to learn to accept it eventually.
To make it all about abortion is very limiting. You are throwing away all this good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender, all for the sake of trying to keep ONE thing around and say that ONLY people who believe in that ONE thing are good people, or adequate enough to call themselves something. THIS is one of the reasons why feminism is looked down upon, and many feminists don't realize they are feminists. Feminists themselves are making other feminists think they aren't feminists because they have pro-life views. We all hate how much people don't realize they are feminist. We all know the "Well I'm not a feminist, I just believe in (insert what feminists believe in)" circumstance that happens ALL the time, so why do that TO them? If they are feminist besides that, why wouldn't you HATE it if they didn't realize they were feminist, just like you do with people who do that in general? Feminism DOES NOT equal abortion.
Not only that but it really shows a lack of priorities. There are so many things wrong with the world, wrong with gender discrimination, wrong with women being raped and killed and this and that just for being women, and you are more concerned about women having a right to abortion? SERIOUSLY? Not to mention the females BEING KILLED IN THE WOMB JUST FOR BEING FEMALES!! But oh wait, you say we have to support that because a woman can choose no matter what, or let's just ignore it because it'll hurt our pro-choice movement. There are also women being FORCED or COERCED into abortions, but oh wait, we have to keep it legal for the greater good, all the bad things that come with it be damned. Not to mention all the women who regret abortion and have PTSD and suicidal thoughts and tendencies, or who have actually killed themselves because of it, but oh wait, we need it legal, and we need people to be pro-choice, so let's just ignore them and say they don't exist and it's all lies, even though you can hear their stories everywhere, so that we can keep abortion. Some people are going to be casualties, right? All of that really shows a lack of caring about women.
To make it all about abortion is very limiting. You are throwing away all this good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender, all for the sake of trying to keep ONE thing around and say that ONLY people who believe in that ONE thing are good people, or adequate enough to call themselves something. THIS is one of the reasons why feminism is looked down upon, and many feminists don't realize they are feminists. Feminists themselves are making other feminists think they aren't feminists because they have pro-life views. We all hate how much people don't realize they are feminist. We all know the "Well I'm not a feminist, I just believe in (insert what feminists believe in)" circumstance that happens ALL the time, so why do that TO them? If they are feminist besides that, why wouldn't you HATE it if they didn't realize they were feminist, just like you do with people who do that in general? Feminism DOES NOT equal abortion.
Not only that but it really shows a lack of priorities. There are so many things wrong with the world, wrong with gender discrimination, wrong with women being raped and killed and this and that just for being women, and you are more concerned about women having a right to abortion? SERIOUSLY? Not to mention the females BEING KILLED IN THE WOMB JUST FOR BEING FEMALES!! But oh wait, you say we have to support that because a woman can choose no matter what, or let's just ignore it because it'll hurt our pro-choice movement. There are also women being FORCED or COERCED into abortions, but oh wait, we have to keep it legal for the greater good, all the bad things that come with it be damned. Not to mention all the women who regret abortion and have PTSD and suicidal thoughts and tendencies, or who have actually killed themselves because of it, but oh wait, we need it legal, and we need people to be pro-choice, so let's just ignore them and say they don't exist and it's all lies, even though you can hear their stories everywhere, so that we can keep abortion. Some people are going to be casualties, right? All of that really shows a lack of caring about women.
I've at least skimmed all your posts on this page (starting Aug. 1), and I loved finding so much good information and analysis. I learned about your blog from your interview on the Pro-Life Humanists site.
ReplyDeleteI've read this present post of yours in detail and liked a number of things a lot, such as your analysis about "caring."
I have a question, however. In this post you say that pro-choice feminists tend to deny the feminist credentials of pro-life feminists, and your main point is that this denial is bad. So you start from the assumption (which I don't necessarily disagree with) that feminism is good, and you proceed from that assumption to point out that the denial of the credentials of some would-be feminists will limit the feminist support base; and you conclude that for that reason (and perhaps for other reasons also?) such denial is harmful.
However, the first thing that comes to mind is that pro-choice feminists may feel correct in their denial policy simply because they are using a different definition of feminism than you are. You have partially defined feminism as "all the good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender." But perhaps they are using some other definition. Unless you and they can agree on a def. of feminism, it's too early to argue about which are the correct policies to implement that feminism; and if you can never agree on a def., then it will be more clear for everybody if you use one name for your movement and they use another name for theirs.
It could also be that pro-choice feminists do agree with "all the good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender" -- and yet they would argue that women can never be equal to men as long as they are occasionally hindered by unwanted babies.
And the argument that women can never be equal to men IN THE JOB MARKET as long as they are occasionally hindered by unwanted babies, is exactly the argument that sold second-wave feminists on pro-choice, according to a thesis of Serrin Foster's in a speech which you have quoted in other posts.
And the argument that women can never be equal to men IN THEIR ABILITY TO REALIZE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL as long as they are occasionally hindered by unwanted babies, is exactly the argument advanced by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the US Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart. (She may be using a subjective def. of "full potential.") I have commented on her thinking in the post "Personhood and Citizenship" at http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/
To finally get around to my question: Is "all the good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender" your full def. of feminism, or would you add to that? And how would you argue that if pregnant women adopt a caring and nurturing attitude toward their unborn, that will not make them unequal or disadvantaged? May that acceptance of responsibility possibly be a disadvantage in the job market (Serrin Foster is skeptical even of this idea), but an advantage in some other way?
If you have already answered this question in some archived post, can you please point me to that post? Thanks and keep up the good work.
Ah well it's actually a myth that feminism does not have much of a definition and can be interpreted by anyone to mean anything, and that is pushed by anti-feminists or people who want to belittle it. Yes there is a lot of leeway, but feminism is equality of the sexes. It's the opposite of being sexist. Feminists don’t have another definition besides thinking that the sexes should be treated equally, other than people who may call themselves feminist yet want female domination, but of course that isn't feminism, it's the opposite. Those who are sexist/don't want the sexes to be treated equally/think that one is better than the other/one should rule over the other etc. are the only people that couldn't be called feminist. Lots of people who don't think they are feminist actually are because they too want equality between the sexes, but have been led astray by the misconceptions and brainwashed into believing feminism isn't what it is, but they still are feminist.
ReplyDeleteWithin feminism, there are disagreements as to what way we can accomplish equality of the sexes, but there isn’t disagreement as to the actual goal/point/definition. Pro-life feminists who believe in equality of the sexes are feminist whether pro-choice feminists like it or not. It may have some gray areas as to how to achieve this, but there is a textbook definition, and feminists themselves do always tend to abide by them, and you can say it in different ways to, but it always means the same general thing, "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities" "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" I have never come across a feminist who doesn't have that definition. Saying you could have another definition of it would be like saying you can have another definition of anything and anything can be interpreted in various ways.
Yes, that is my point. Pro-choice feminists do believe in that, and may have a different viewpoint on whether or not abortion does this, but they also do with various things that they disagree on with other feminists, yet they still consider those people feminists because they know that people are individuals and will disagree, but they still have the same definition of feminism, and are working toward that with what they see fit. Pro-life feminists still tend to consider pro-choice feminists, feminists, because we too know that we have differences, we just think they have been lead astray by this one thing. If pro-choice feminists could accept our differences and work with us for the greater good of feminism, like they do with everyone else, even people they may disagree with on more issues, and not cast us off as "not feminists" or bad people, then a lot more work can be done and good can come by mending fences. Though some pro-choice feminists do see this already.
Pregnant women caring about and nurturing their unborn wouldn't make them unequal because that wouldn't make anyone unequal. Men can do that as well. Feminism says yeah you can split the world up into men and women, but the differences between them don't mean they should be treated negatively, such as saying they have to give up their differences in order to be treated equally, thus denying them the fact that they can give birth and say that the only way to be equal to men is to be like men. That’s unequal. Women shouldn't be punished for their biology and the fact that they aren't men. The point of Serrin's speech wasn't to say pregnant women are naturally unequal in the job market, but rather that is the sexism that was put in place by the guys from NARAL trying to sell women abortion, and that is what feminists should work to fix. We should make it so women have an easy time being pregnant and working. The fact that we are women and we can get pregnant should not be used to bring us to a disadvantage.
Thanks for your reply.
ReplyDelete". . . feminism is equality of the sexes. . . ."
"Pro-choice feminists do believe in that [equality}, and may have a different viewpoint on whether or not abortion does this, but they also do with various things that they disagree on with other feminists, yet they still consider those people feminists . . ."
But according to what you say, they don't consider pro-life feminists to be feminists. So it seems they consider the difference on abortion to be more fundamental than those other differences.
Pro-life feminists and pro-choice feminists both agree that feminism is equality of the sexes, but pro-choice feminists say that pro-life feminists are not feminists. This is hard to understand . . . unless they disagree on what "equality of the sexes" means.
This reminds me of a dialogue between Serrin Foster and one of her correspondents.
SF: “Women aren’t stupid. We know it’s a baby that is growing just like we did in our mother’s wombs. . . . For years, abortion advocates have been pitting women against their unborn children, dehumanizing the growing child with misleading phrases like ‘blobs of cells’ and ‘products of conception.’ . . .”
Michelle Stewart: “I am a prolife feminist. Abortion before 20 weeks is equally wrong. The founding feminists understood this truth. Women are strongest when they engage as warriors to protect the most vulnerable. What is more vulnerable than an unviable human being in development?”
The word "strongest" sounds to me as though MS is taking issue with someone else's def. of strength. Might she be taking issue with pro-choice feminists? Might pro-choice feminists have a different def. of strength (political, economic) than the kind of strength (moral) MS is talking about? Might pro-choice feminists say that a woman who puts the emphasis on moral strength is not a feminist at all? Would relatively more emphasis on moral strength vs. relatively more emphasis on other kinds of strength be a difference between men and women, yet the kind of difference that "doesn't mean they should be treated negatively" -- ?
"The point of Serrin's speech wasn't to say pregnant women are naturally unequal in the job market, but rather that is the sexism that was put in place by the guys from NARAL . . ."
I think I understood that. As I said, "Serrin Foster is skeptical . . . of this idea."