Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[GaryC 7]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think its easy to claim ownership of labels (like liberalism, conservatism and feminism) without much more than a token consideration of what those labels actually mean. In the case of the political labels - that's certainly true given how both liberalism and conservatism (very broad ideological theories) are used as insults in many of the threads on this site, not to mention the continued assumption, for example that "left wing" is synonymous with the Democratic Party, with Liberalism and even Communism. Its just silly. When terms like this are used interchangeably it suggest that the people using them didn't really know what they meant in the first place.

My question is this, why does feminism or equal rights for women have to be "left wing"? Aren't "right wing" women allowed to ask for the rights they want also?

[rocks 494]

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies.

that is exactly it, "selective" rights for women sounds like something out of animal farm...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think its easy to claim ownership of labels (like liberalism, conservatism and feminism) without much more than a token consideration of what those labels actually mean. In the case of the political labels - that's certainly true given how both liberalism and conservatism (very broad ideological theories) are used as insults in many of the threads on this site, not to mention the continued assumption, for example that "left wing" is synonymous with the Democratic Party, with Liberalism and even Communism. Its just silly. When terms like this are used interchangeably it suggest that the people using them didn't really know what they meant in the first place.

My question is this, why does feminism or equal rights for women have to be "left wing"? Aren't "right wing" women allowed to ask for the rights they want also?

I think because Feminism actually has its roots in the political left.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think feminism has moved on considerably since Andrea Dworkin, especially with regards to her positions on pornography and sexuality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think its the sort of thing that really dates to be honest - that really only happens once the cultural outlook that provides the work with its context becomes radically different.

But I am certainly curious as to which Feminist figures represent the current state of thinking on the subject.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[GaryC 7]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think its easy to claim ownership of labels (like liberalism, conservatism and feminism) without much more than a token consideration of what those labels actually mean. In the case of the political labels - that's certainly true given how both liberalism and conservatism (very broad ideological theories) are used as insults in many of the threads on this site, not to mention the continued assumption, for example that "left wing" is synonymous with the Democratic Party, with Liberalism and even Communism. Its just silly. When terms like this are used interchangeably it suggest that the people using them didn't really know what they meant in the first place.

My question is this, why does feminism or equal rights for women have to be "left wing"? Aren't "right wing" women allowed to ask for the rights they want also?

I think because Feminism actually has its roots in the political left.

The pro-life faction of America has it's roots in conservatism and religion but I can still call myself a Christian conservative. I doubt if there are hard absolutes in either position.

[Sprailenes 47]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think its easy to claim ownership of labels (like liberalism, conservatism and feminism) without much more than a token consideration of what those labels actually mean. In the case of the political labels - that's certainly true given how both liberalism and conservatism (very broad ideological theories) are used as insults in many of the threads on this site, not to mention the continued assumption, for example that "left wing" is synonymous with the Democratic Party, with Liberalism and even Communism. Its just silly. When terms like this are used interchangeably it suggest that the people using them didn't really know what they meant in the first place.

My question is this, why does feminism or equal rights for women have to be "left wing"? Aren't "right wing" women allowed to ask for the rights they want also?

They are allowed.

There are right winged people who are pro-choice too.

I don't think this is a left/right issue so much that it doesn't always make sense to be a feminist for WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS and be against allowing the woman to make a choice for herself. Its a bit of a paradox.

I am sure there are seletive feminists though who choose to be pro-life and take a stance on other issues facing women.

[Peikko 1,575]

ugh well, semantics.. isn't a baby something that's been born already?

What is the "thing" in the womb as its mother is in labor to give it birth? Is it not a baby then? The problem with refusing to admit that abortion is murder is that you have to accept nonsensical arguments that deem the child a non-entity in order to deny it rights or even humanity.

Wrong, again. The 'thing' in the womb is a foetus. An entity that cannot survive outside the womb. It is not a non-entity and that is not why it has no rights. It has no rights because it can't survive without the co operation of another human being.

Shall we try again with our siamese twins question?

First of all I guess I should make this clear, I am not your usual "conservative" when it comes to abortion. Even though I personally am apposed to it I don't disagree that a first trimester abortion should be the woman's choice. I don't have a problem with contraception or appropriate sex education for children old enough to understand what they are being told. I don't even have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. A second trimester abortion however, should only be for the mothers health and not for family planning. A third trimester abortion should only be done if both would die without it. So there, that is my belief.

So now to my question. If I understand your position correctly you think that abortion is not murder because the fetus isn't viable outside the mother's womb. If it isn't viable then it isn't human and no human rights should be given to it. Have I got you right?

Ok, What about third trimester fetus's? Clearly they are sometimes viable. I myself have a step granddaughter that was 1 lb 2oz at birth. I am not sure of the gestation time but it was very early third trimester. Jessica is a beautiful 4 year old girl now.

Do you think a third trimester abortion is just an abortion or murder?

I am not trying to yank your chain, I only wish to understand your reasoning.

Pretty much. Giving a non viable foetus human rights would be a pretty dodgy thing to do from a legal perspective as six has intimated on this topic before, how would one legislate the rights of an entity that could not survive if the cooperation of the host is withdrawn? It's pretty much a non starter from a legal point of view unless one is prepared to incarcerate all women who might attempt to harm the growing foetus in some way and even then?

Your supplement question is somewhat odd as it pre disposes a position I don't necessarily hold. Being pro choice isn't an automatic licence for women to be feckless. Abortion isn't routinely performed after, what 16 weeks? (sorry, I don't know the exact limits, just that there are limits and for sensible medical reasons). I have no problem with setting limits on what is and isn't acceptable based on medical guidelines and ethics. I doubt anyone can just go into a clinic with a third trimester fetus and demand an abortion, I would imagine such an abortion would be pretty much only performed if the mother's life was at severe risk. If this isn't the case currently, it certainly should be.

Ok, and again I am not yanking your chain, but third trimester abortions are legal for any reason in some states. I want to know if you think that is murder or just an abortion. The reason I ask this question is because 20 years ago Jessica would have been an "nonviable" fetus. Today she is viable. Who knows but maybe 20 years from now a 3 month fetus may be viable. I was wondering if you would modify your definition to fit the medical advances of the day.

Let's start with the fact that my personal view on abortion and my view on whether abortion should be legal are not exactly the same.

My personal view is an abortion is never 'just' an abortion. I do not view this as a flippant or easy decision and I would wish more focus to be laid on education to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is not the best way to manage family planning.

However from a legal stand point abortion should never be classified as murder, as I see it, that would cause too many complications that would prevent the medical staff from doing their job efficiently and professionally and the danger of legal process intervening really doesn't bear thinking about in my mind.

On a personal preference point of view, I am more inclined to the view that a third trimester baby should not be aborted routinely for the purpose of birth control. I believe that it is possible to make the decision a lot earlier in the process except in very exceptional circumstances. However, I am still not that interested in making this decision on behalf of someone else.

As regards your personal experience, I think it's fabulous that you and your family gain so much joy and love from the presence of a person who would likely never have survived had modern technology not been available to her.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you can be a feminist and be pro-life - stance on abortion does not define feminism IMO.

My understanding of it is that the pro-life position usually equates to support for repressive government policies that would essentially dictate to other women what they can or can't do with their bodies. My understanding of this comes largely from the work of Andrea Dworkin. As I said - a "real" left-wing feminist. Worth a look if anyone's interest - some interesting work not only on abortion, but also pornography.

I think its easy to claim ownership of labels (like liberalism, conservatism and feminism) without much more than a token consideration of what those labels actually mean. In the case of the political labels - that's certainly true given how both liberalism and conservatism (very broad ideological theories) are used as insults in many of the threads on this site, not to mention the continued assumption, for example that "left wing" is synonymous with the Democratic Party, with Liberalism and even Communism. Its just silly. When terms like this are used interchangeably it suggest that the people using them didn't really know what they meant in the first place.

My question is this, why does feminism or equal rights for women have to be "left wing"? Aren't "right wing" women allowed to ask for the rights they want also?

I think because Feminism actually has its roots in the political left.

The pro-life faction of America has it's roots in conservatism and religion but I can still call myself a Christian conservative. I doubt if there are hard absolutes in either position.

Perhaps not - but the criticism of that position doesn't change because of it.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I don't think its the sort of thing that really dates to be honest - unless of course the cultural outlook that provides the context becomes radically different.

But I am certainly curious as to which Feminist figures represent the current state of thinking on the subject.

I know a lot of women who don't identify with Andrea Dworkin at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

Although most "third wave" feminists support reproductive rights

[rclouse 0]

Ok, and again I am not yanking your chain, but third trimester abortions are legal for any reason in some states. I want to know if you think that is murder or just an abortion. The reason I ask this question is because 20 years ago Jessica would have been an "nonviable" fetus. Today she is viable. Who knows but maybe 20 years from now a 3 month fetus may be viable. I was wondering if you would modify your definition to fit the medical advances of the day.

Here's what Carl Sagan had to say about viability:

If the fetus at a certain stage of gestation would be viable outside the womb, the argument goes, then the right of the fetus to life overrides the right of the woman to privacy. But just what does "viable" mean? Even a full-term newborn is not viable without a great deal of care and love. There was a time before incubators, only a few decades ago, when babies in their seventh month were unlikely to be viable. Would aborting in the seventh month have been permissible then? After the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood--as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality.

Oh, and virtualwife, I'm voting for Obama not because he's black, not because I have white guilt, but because he is intelligent, he rose from very humble beginnings (single mother on food stamps, hello!), he is eloquent, he has ideas I agree with, and he is the best person for the job. Way better than McSame.

[IAMX 3,055]

Good luck finding many feminists who would want to join Sarah Palin from the Bay Area.

Being a conservative feminist would make little sense, as feminists are for women's rights, and conservatives have little vested interest in protecting women's rights. Even one of the most conservative feminists, Kay Bailey Hutchison, has voted to erode women's rights and get the ire of feminist groups.

Conservative feminism is quite contradictory in and of itself. Conservatives aren't known for fighting for rights of any sort unless it's their own.

[Peikko 1,575]

A person who purports to be a feminist but supports legislation that prohibits the excercise of control over their own body and therefore their ultimate destiny is contradictory.

[GaryC 7]

ugh well, semantics.. isn't a baby something that's been born already?

What is the "thing" in the womb as its mother is in labor to give it birth? Is it not a baby then? The problem with refusing to admit that abortion is murder is that you have to accept nonsensical arguments that deem the child a non-entity in order to deny it rights or even humanity.

Wrong, again. The 'thing' in the womb is a foetus. An entity that cannot survive outside the womb. It is not a non-entity and that is not why it has no rights. It has no rights because it can't survive without the co operation of another human being.

Shall we try again with our siamese twins question?

First of all I guess I should make this clear, I am not your usual "conservative" when it comes to abortion. Even though I personally am apposed to it I don't disagree that a first trimester abortion should be the woman's choice. I don't have a problem with contraception or appropriate sex education for children old enough to understand what they are being told. I don't even have a problem with embryonic stem cell research. A second trimester abortion however, should only be for the mothers health and not for family planning. A third trimester abortion should only be done if both would die without it. So there, that is my belief.

So now to my question. If I understand your position correctly you think that abortion is not murder because the fetus isn't viable outside the mother's womb. If it isn't viable then it isn't human and no human rights should be given to it. Have I got you right?

Ok, What about third trimester fetus's? Clearly they are sometimes viable. I myself have a step granddaughter that was 1 lb 2oz at birth. I am not sure of the gestation time but it was very early third trimester. Jessica is a beautiful 4 year old girl now.

Do you think a third trimester abortion is just an abortion or murder?

I am not trying to yank your chain, I only wish to understand your reasoning.

Pretty much. Giving a non viable foetus human rights would be a pretty dodgy thing to do from a legal perspective as six has intimated on this topic before, how would one legislate the rights of an entity that could not survive if the cooperation of the host is withdrawn? It's pretty much a non starter from a legal point of view unless one is prepared to incarcerate all women who might attempt to harm the growing foetus in some way and even then?

Your supplement question is somewhat odd as it pre disposes a position I don't necessarily hold. Being pro choice isn't an automatic licence for women to be feckless. Abortion isn't routinely performed after, what 16 weeks? (sorry, I don't know the exact limits, just that there are limits and for sensible medical reasons). I have no problem with setting limits on what is and isn't acceptable based on medical guidelines and ethics. I doubt anyone can just go into a clinic with a third trimester fetus and demand an abortion, I would imagine such an abortion would be pretty much only performed if the mother's life was at severe risk. If this isn't the case currently, it certainly should be.

Ok, and again I am not yanking your chain, but third trimester abortions are legal for any reason in some states. I want to know if you think that is murder or just an abortion. The reason I ask this question is because 20 years ago Jessica would have been an "nonviable" fetus. Today she is viable. Who knows but maybe 20 years from now a 3 month fetus may be viable. I was wondering if you would modify your definition to fit the medical advances of the day.

Let's start with the fact that my personal view on abortion and my view on whether abortion should be legal are not exactly the same.

My personal view is an abortion is never 'just' an abortion. I do not view this as a flippant or easy decision and I would wish more focus to be laid on education to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is not the best way to manage family planning.

However from a legal stand point abortion should never be classified as murder, as I see it, that would cause too many complications that would prevent the medical staff from doing their job efficiently and professionally and the danger of legal process intervening really doesn't bear thinking about in my mind.

On a personal preference point of view, I am more inclined to the view that a third trimester baby should not be aborted routinely for the purpose of birth control. I believe that it is possible to make the decision a lot earlier in the process except in very exceptional circumstances. However, I am still not that interested in making this decision on behalf of someone else.

As regards your personal experience, I think it's fabulous that you and your family gain so much joy and love from the presence of a person who would likely never have survived had modern technology not been available to her.

The neo-natal ICU unit of the San Antonio hospital is truly amazing.

Don't worry PH, I am not trying to trap you into saying something as a "gotcha". My point is that as medical advances continue the idea of a "viable" fetus changes. If your comfort level for abortions is laid on what is viable then as things change your opinion must also change. At some point we will have artificial wombs so in effect an embryo will be "viable" outside the mothers womb. The laws will need to address this. It will not be an easy task.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think its the sort of thing that really dates to be honest - unless of course the cultural outlook that provides the context becomes radically different.

But I am certainly curious as to which Feminist figures represent the current state of thinking on the subject.

I know a lot of women who don't identify with Andrea Dworkin at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

Although most "third wave" feminists support reproductive rights

I think her position on pornography is quite interesting - basically that amounts to a form of indentured slavery. Certainly when women started taking ownership of pornography - I think is not too dissimilar to that other debate on the the use of the "N" word in the black community.