But, as I read the article, I found her argument compelling. Summers writes,
As far as I am concerned, feminism boils down to one fundamental principle and that is women's ability to be independent.
There are two fundamental preconditions to such independence: ability to support oneself financially and the right to control one's fertility. To achieve the first, women need the education and training to be able to undertake work that pays well. To guarantee the second, women need safe and effective contraception and the back-up of safe and affordable abortion.
She compares two women: Tankard Reist, an anti-pornography self-proclaimed feminist, and Margaret Thatcher, who never identified as a feminist but Meryl Streep has stated that she was one "whether she likes it or not." She goes on to write,
Tankard Reist, on the other hand, rails against the abuse of women and girls' bodies through pornography but then sanctions the ultimate assault on a woman's body: requiring her to carry a child she has decided she cannot have.
I think this is definitely a compelling point. For people who are truly pro-life, they are also pro-forced -parenthood. Now, I'm not saying that "pro-life" supporters want to force everyone to have babies; of course not. But when abstinence-only education has failed (as it does), and birth control has failed, and condoms have failed, pro-life supporters want the baby to be born, no matter the circumstances. No matter the woman.
So, I think I might agree with her, though I'm very reluctant to do so. I'm not railing against pro-life supporters; I believe in everyone's right to beliefs and opinions. And I don't like the idea of saying "You believe in women's independence, equal pay, equal treatment, but because you also believe in no abortions, you can't a feminist." That seems unfair. I don't think that feminism should be all or nothing. But I do think that a woman's ability to control her life and all aspects of it, to decide when she can or cannot have children, is essential to her independence. I'm very conflicted here.
So what do you think? Can you be a pro-life feminist? Is the ability to control one's fertility so essential to independence that you can't truly be a feminist without advocating for safe and legal abortion?
http://persephonemagazine.com/2012/01/i-am-pro-life-and-i-vote-pro-choice/
ReplyDeleteWhile I generally agree with the idea that a woman's right to control over her own body seems like a pretty essential component of a feminist worldview, I'm always reluctant when dealing with big, multifaceted categories like "feminist" to claim that there's some precise, uniform rubric by which to judge whether someone belongs or not.
ReplyDeleteI think someone could certainly make the argument that she is both "pro-life" and "feminist" by claiming that there are many laws we all agree are necessary and right even though they restrict our freedom or hamper our independence, and abortion just happens to be something that she feels must be restricted for the common good. It's not anti-woman because it would apply just as much to men if biology allowed them to become pregnant as well (NOTE: this is not MY argument, by any means, just a hypothetical).
I, of course, believe that the fundamental problem with the abortion argument is that we talk about it in terms of morality when we should talk about it in terms of what we value in our laws. I have no problem with people thinking abortion is wrong. I, honestly, am not sure where I stand on the issue myself, But whether it's right or wrong isn't the point. The point is that our ideal as Americans is (or should be) that we don't legislate morality. Murder is not illegal because we think it's wrong, it's illegal because it infringes on the legal rights of others. Pornography isn't legal because we think it's right, it's legal because as long as there are people who want to make it and people who want to look at it, no one's rights have been infringed upon.
Having said that, I don't think any movement helps itself by drawing unflinchingly stringent borders when it comes to who can or cannot be a part of the movement. That's not a path to understanding, it's a path to division. So if someone agrees with the general feminist ideals (or most of them) but differs on one specific aspect of their application to real life, why say she doesn't deserve to apply the label? The only thing accomplished is that the movement is one person smaller than it would be otherwise.
Plus, she'll just keep on applying it anyway if she wants to, because there's no law that says she can't...
--Wil O.