babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Is there such thing as a pro-life feminist?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is there such thing as a pro-life feminist?
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 31 August 2008 04:27 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a comment by The Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington in reference to the Republican VP nominee, Sarah Palin:

"She's an athletic, pro-life feminist, a former sports reporter, who not only hunts moose but eats them. She ice-fishes, owns a float plane and as captain of her school basketball team was known as Sarah Barracuda for her intense play."

Is Palin a feminist because she believes in feminism or because she is successful in life so far? At the same time, she is against choice for women on the issue of abortion.

I will ask anyone, "Is there such thing as a pro-life feminist?"

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Skinny Dipper ]


From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 31 August 2008 04:36 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 31 August 2008 04:57 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, I was being glib.

I think Mr. Worthington was trying to cover all his bases, but simply calling someone a feminist does not make it so. The list that Worthington cites is a clear argument of "she's a good old boy, she's one of us, only she's a woman. So, like, vote for her, 'kay?"

For the record, Palin is not a feminist because:

..... she's anti-choice
..... she's a member of the NRA
..... she's anti-birth control
..... she's anti SSM

She makes men feel comfortable (code for she doesn't challenge men on sexism or anything else), meaning she doesn't come across as powerful and having her own mind (unlike HRC, C.Rice), and optically her deficits balance McCain (lack of experience as one example). I also think the Republicans felt they needed a non-man, perhaps non-white person so as to not appear to be the dinosaurs that they are.

New slogan for the Republicans "Evolve or Die!"


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 31 August 2008 05:14 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I would think a nice Republican logo would be a fish/tetrapod ( a "fishapod") slithering back into the sea and saying to another of its kind, "Why change?"

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 31 August 2008 05:29 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Glibness is great in the morning.

I try not to interchange "pro-life" and "anti-choice" because I don't think they mean the same thing. I met one feminist who called herself pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. She was pro-life because she would give birth no matter the condition of the fetus. That was her choice. She was pro-choice because she felt other pregnant women should decide on their own.

I will agree with your point in that she make men comfortable.

I don't think Palin will help McCain get the Hilary Clinton women's vote. I do think she will be a powerful geo-political candidate even though she comes from the tiny populated state of Alaska. There will be voters from small states and rural parts of bigger states that will be able to identify with Palin. I should add that Christian fundametalists will also identify with her. I will not underestimate her performance in the next two months.


From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 31 August 2008 05:32 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
She is no more a feminist than a Black person who favours slavery, Jim Crow or apartheid would be an anti-racist.

She is a mortal enemy of women and of the environment. And a religious fundie nutcase.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 31 August 2008 05:51 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
Glibness is great in the morning.

Thanks, I try.

quote:

I try not to interchange "pro-life" and "anti-choice" because I don't think they mean the same thing. I met one feminist who called herself pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. She was pro-life because she would give birth no matter the condition of the fetus. That was her choice. She was pro-choice because she felt other pregnant women should decide on their own.

Not to derail this thread into an abortion argument, but your friend's position is pro-choice. Her personal choice/belief is not related to her position that abortion must be safe and available for all women (which includes the choice to not have an abortion). I actually hate the argument of "I personally would never have one" as it's completely hypothetical, steeped in privilege and assumptions and marks the speaker as making a moral judgement on abortion itself, and women who choose to have them.

As for Palin, the fact that she's from Alaska scares the bejeezus out of me, if the Republicans get in.

quote:

I don't think Palin will help McCain get the Hilary Clinton women's vote.

Given how completely unlike Hilary Clinton Palin is, I think anyone who thinks that this was the reason she was chosen to run on the McCain ticket is lacking analysis and understanding of, like, everything.

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 31 August 2008 06:02 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the comments, bigcitygal. I'll take a rest from this forum for the morning and early afternoon. This is one of those forums that I hope will stop by the end of the day. Basically, you answered my question and I may not need to post anymore on this topic.
From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
A_J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15412

posted 31 August 2008 06:15 AM      Profile for A_J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
For the record, Palin is not a feminist because:

..... she's anti-choice
..... she's a member of the NRA
..... she's anti-birth control
..... she's anti SSM



Completely agree with you on three of your four points. Anti-choice, anti-contraceptive and anti-LBGT equality stances are the antithesis of feminism . . . but I'm confused as to why being in favour of gun ownership automatically puts one at odds with feminism?

From: * | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 31 August 2008 06:52 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh dear. If NRA only advocated the right to gun ownership for hunters and farmers in rural and wilderness areas, that might be a different kettle of fish. Please don't tell me there is another anti-gun-control person infesting this board.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 31 August 2008 07:21 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I didn't see A_J's question that way. I had the same reaction, and I'm in favour of gun control. I just see it as a separate issue from feminism. It's true that pro-gun and anti-feminist positions coincide more often than not, but I don't think you can conclude that they're the same position from that. Correlation does not equal causation.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 31 August 2008 07:58 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who said anything about causation?
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 August 2008 09:01 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
Here's a comment by The Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington in reference to the Republican VP nominee, Sarah Palin:

"She's an athletic, pro-life feminist, a former sports reporter, who not only hunts moose but eats them. She ice-fishes, owns a float plane and as captain of her school basketball team was known as Sarah Barracuda for her intense play."

Is Palin a feminist because she believes in feminism or because she is successful in life so far? At the same time, she is against choice for women on the issue of abortion.

I will ask anyone, "Is there such thing as a pro-life feminist?"

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Skinny Dipper ]


I'm going to disagree with a lot of people here and say "yes".

While I recognize that a pro-choice stance is important to the larger movement of feminism, I also think that one's personal feminism is a very individual thing. One can be for the equality of women and men, be against violence toward women and all of the rest and still be deeply uncomfortable with the abortion issue.

I know that this is not consistent with the version of feminism promoted on this board, that it may be wildly inconsistent in and of itself, but who doesn't have their inconsistencies? Isn't part of feminism having the freedom to make your own choices as to what you think?

eta: And the gun thing... Part of why I'm a feminist is that my papa taught me how to shoot.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 09:14 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A_J:
I'm confused as to why being in favour of gun ownership automatically puts one at odds with feminism?

You are conflating the NRA, with gun ownership, and the belief in people's right to have guns.

I am a feminist who believes in the right of people, who are hunters and farmers, to have rifles, but strictly controlled rifles. In fact, once upon a time I was an expert shot, and still am a pretty good one.

I, however, have no use for the NRA, and its principles and membership.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 31 August 2008 09:23 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with remind - I'm not opposed to hunting, unless it is of endangered species or horrid things such as canned hunts or hunts in which the prey is not caught for food or some other need. Or to the need for some people in isolated areas to have firearms to protect themselves.

But NRA is against all gun laws, and I have too much personal experience with Polytechnique (I was at UdM that evening) for that to do anything but make my skin crawl.

And I have to disagree with Timebandit. I don't think feminism is just about personal choice - for example, I don't think a career woman who exploits the labour of domestic workers by underpaying them or threatening them on the basis of their immigration status is a feminist. And I certainly don't think any person, male or female, who wants to condemn any woman to unwanted pregancy has anything to do with feminism - they are advocates of reproductive slavery.

If Palin wants to go ahead with a pregnancy after 40 without testing for Downs or to wilfully give birth to a child afflicted with it, that is her business (and I'd even say that here when the hefty medical bills are borne by all taxpayers). I think it is absolutely nuts, but it is her choice. But the thought of forcing another woman (who can't afford nannies and other help, and in the US even the horrific medical bills the family will face) to go through with that is unfathomable cruelty.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 August 2008 09:38 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On a personal level, regarding choice, I agree with you, lagatta. But I'm making the point that feminism is not a one-issue movement and that there is a lot of difference between feminists on what constitutes a feminist or what focus feminism should have. In some ways that's a good thing, in others not so much.

I disagree with your example of the career woman taking advantage of a domestic worker -- I'd say she's classist, for sure, but that doesn't negate her feminism. She isn't taking advantage of the domestic because the domestic is female. It's class entitlement at work there. And while there are parallels between class struggle and feminist struggle, they're not quite the same thing. bell hooks had a lot to say about where and how race and class intersect with feminism, and that they are not always in tandem. I can't disagree with her.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 09:55 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lagatta, she knew she was having a Down Syndrome child, as she was tested for it. Which makes her more of a darling to the pro-lifers.


And I agree with you regarding the point you made that pro-choice is fundamental to feminism.

If women do not get the fundamental right that women cannot be compelled to give their body into the service of another, for any reason, even if that other's life is in danger, then I do not believe they are a feminist.

Moreover, they would have no understanding of the Rights to freedom of conscience, and privacy, as it pertains to not giving one's body into the service of another.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 August 2008 10:01 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, remind, that's your opinion. But who gets to say? You? Me? Some "authority"? Do we have any "authority" within feminism? It's not like feminism is a movement that has specific credentials that are the key to membership.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 10:16 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thought I was only giving my opinion? As for me, it, feminism, is singularily a matter of understanding and agreeing with equality and other human rights, as they pertain to women.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 August 2008 10:25 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right, but you interpret that broader notion to your own specificities -- we all do. And we spend a lot of time saying that all definitions and viewpoints have their own validity. This thread certainly leads in that direction.

So whose specificity defines who can and can't be a feminist? Does that exclude someone who hits on most other points aside from being "pro-life"?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 10:33 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For me it does, yes, if one cannot understand and accept, or hold to be true, how fundamental it is to women's equality rigts, that a woman cannot, and should not be, compelled to give their life into the service of another, then there is really no belief present in women's actual equality rights.

Moreover, to disregard freedom of conscience and privacy too, means one is discarding 3 of the most fundamental human rights. And for me, such a person is not a feminist. Nor apparently do they believe in human rights as they pertain to women.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 31 August 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
For me it does, yes, if one cannot understand and accept, or hold to be true, how fundamental it is to women's equality rigts, that a woman cannot, and should not be, compelled to give their life into the service of another, then there is really no belief present in women's actual equality rights.

Moreover, to disregard freedom of conscience and privacy too, means one is discarding 3 of the most fundamental human rights. And for me, such a person is not a feminist. Nor apparently do they believe in human rights as they pertain to women.


"...for me..." is precisely what I'm getting at. To you, to your way of thinking, but not necessarily someone else's. So who gets to hand out the gold sealed, stamped membership card? You? Me? Somebody else?

I also have a slight quibble with the phrase "compelled to give their life into the service of another". That takes the pro-choice argument out of the realm of the physical and opens the door to other questions,such as whether a man should have to support a child when he hasn't chosen to be a father. One could make the argument that this is a version of being compelled to give one's life over, in a sense. I think that's a slightly flawed definition.

And again, we've said elsewhere that all definitions have some validity, but then we turn around and add that they do as long as they agree with our own... A stance almost as inconsistent as a pro-life feminist...


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 11:52 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
I also have a slight quibble with the phrase "compelled to give their life into the service of another".
It is the legal term used by Jusitce Wilson in the SCC ruling of 1988, and is the fundamental basis of why Canada does not have abortion laws. It is part of the criminal code and used to only pertain to men.

quote:
That takes the pro-choice argument out of the realm of the physical and opens the door to other questions,such as whether a man should have to support a child when he hasn't chosen to be a father.
No, I do not believe it does, or it would already have been used to do so. It is part of the criminal code and comes from the old British Common Law, from which our justice system is based.

quote:
I think that's a slightly flawed definition.
Well then, you disagree with the SCC.

quote:
A stance almost as inconsistent as a pro-life feminist...

No actually it isn't. It is consistently in favour of people respecting basic human rights, and if you cannot, then I do not believe it is feminist thought, or beliefs.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 31 August 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Time bandit, you're making some interesting points about who gets to define what's progressive, eg feminist. On a general level, I tend to agree with you. However, surely the most fundamental basis of feminism is the empowerment of women, and the pro-life position does the opposite, taking power away from women by forcing them to bear children in the case of all pregnancies.
From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 August 2008 12:02 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are certain wedge issues that divide feminist and non-feminist women. The right to choose abortion is one of them.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 August 2008 12:05 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
I will agree with your point in that she make men comfortable.
Palin doesn't make me feel comfortable at all. Anti-choice women creep me out.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 31 August 2008 03:31 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is by no means an endorsement of their position (I strongly believe the opposite) but this is Feminists for Life's "feminist argument" against abortion:
quote:
Feminists for Life of America recognizes that abortion is a symptom of, not a solution to, the continuing struggles women face in the workplace, at home and in society. Our emphasis is on addressing root causes and promoting solutions - from prevention to practical resources.

The first step is to empower young women and men to make life-affirming choices. No compassionate person, pro-choice or pro-life, wants to see a teenage girl drop out of school and face a lifetime of poverty because she became pregnant. Nor do we want her to suffer the pain and anguish of abortion. Public and private funding for comprehensive programs that emphasize teen pregnancy prevention must be increased dramatically. We need honest and unbiased evaluation and replication of effective programs that include proven strategies such as life-planning skills training and mentoring. Boys, as well as girls, should be included in the remedy.

Groups like Feminists for Life and pregnancy resource centers regularly get calls from women who are pressured by partners who say they will pay $300 for an abortion but won't pay a dime in child support. Men and boys need to know that, thanks to legislation supported by Feminists for Life and other women's organizations that strengthens child support enforcement and paternity establishment, they can no longer coerce women into having an abortion by threatening to abandon their children if they are born. But fathers need to do more than make payments. Their presence is needed in their child's life. For women whose partners are absent and who are unable to provide for their children, assistance must come from both private and public sources to protect children by providing the basis, including affordable, quality child care, and education and employment opportunities for the mother.

If we are serious as a nation about significantly reducing the number of abortions, then established, credible pregnancy resource centers should be eligible for federal funding. Nearly 4,000 pregnancy care centers and maternity homes guide women in crisis through the maze of available support services - food, clothing, housing, furniture, medical care including high risk pregnancies, legal assistance, help with employment and education, drug abuse and domestic violence counseling, childbirth, breast-feeding and parenting classes - all at no charge. Some specialize in bilingual/bicultural services, adoption and/or post-abortion counseling. These centers are where many pro-lifers "walk their talk" to help women in need. They leverage financial and in-kind resources from individuals, businesses, churches and communities across the country, yet they cannot consistently meet the demand for services.


EDITED TO ADD: Palin is a leading member of this organization.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 31 August 2008 03:37 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, so if palin is in favor of prevention, why is she opposed to birth control?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 31 August 2008 03:52 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Okay, so if palin is in favor of prevention, why is she opposed to birth control?

A woman's job is to bear children and provide for men's needs. You're looking for consistency?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 31 August 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When pro-lifers refer to "prevention," they're not talking birth control. They're talking about preventing the sex.
From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 31 August 2008 04:10 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
For the record, Palin is not a feminist because:

..... she's anti-choice
..... she's a member of the NRA
..... she's anti-birth control
..... she's anti SSM

She makes men feel comfortable (code for she doesn't challenge men on sexism or anything else), meaning she doesn't come across as powerful and having her own mind (unlike HRC, C.Rice), and optically her deficits balance McCain (lack of experience as one example). I also think the Republicans felt they needed a non-man, perhaps non-white person so as to not appear to be the dinosaurs that they are.


Not that I want to play devil's advocate again but:
- Palin is described as "pro contraception" in most profiles which would makes the "anti birth control" argument a little off. Her Governor's budgets all have allocations for family planning and contraception for low income families.
- Palin is anti-same sex marriage but she also vetoed a bill that would have banned same-sex spousal benefits and is described as supporting same sex "unions". This is an odious position but its the same as Barrack Obama's.

SOURCE

Now, it seems that the internet smear campaign that was targeting Obama is spreading this, along with other rumours, about Palin including:

- Her fifth child is actually her daughter's illegitimate child
- She's against birth control even for married couples.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 31 August 2008 04:12 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
When pro-lifers refer to "prevention," they're not talking birth control. They're talking about preventing the sex.

Except that they believe in maximizing the sex with the sole male owner of the woman for the purpose of pumping out babies. That rules out premarital or extramarital sex. It also makes birth control totally unnecessary.

As I said, what's the problem?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 05:04 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
Not that I want to play devil's advocate again but: Her Governor's budgets all have allocations for family planning and contraception for low income families-
They do? Where in the pdf that you linked to does it say that? I looked it over twice and i see nothing about birth control, other than they have had a rise in "unmarried pregnancies" amongst teens.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 31 August 2008 05:38 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, this is the one I was reading.

All that noted, it seems that when she ran for Governor she came out against sex education.

Asked, ". . Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" She replied "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Which is just hideous. Assuming this is a real website.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 06:16 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mercy, I do not read that as such, I read that as what the services were prior to her Budget in 2006.

In fact, I read that she got rid of it along with regulating abortions.

quote:
With the reduction in family planning services statewide, there will be an increase in unintended pregnancies among all women because of reduced access to services.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 31 August 2008 06:21 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think that it's possible to be antichoice and be feminist.
Complete control over ones reproduction, regardless of the circumstances, (including the birth control failures that can happen to any of us) is key to women feeling confident in their their power as women.
Celebrating our sexuality freely is not going to happen with men if the fear of pregnancy lurks.
Otherwise the gender imbalance of power is immpossible to negotiate.
I feel that behaving like a guy wannabe and claiming the label 'Feminist" just because you are more manly than many guys, is a big worry for all women.
We don't need to prove ourselves, we don't need to be "tough" or aggressive or competitive or shrewd or rich or so very fearful. I'm feeling that these traits aren't serving the world well and need rethinking.
I'm hoping that women will lead the way in changing world attitudes, not contributing to them.

She sent her 19yr old son off to fight a war! In this day and age just that indicates to me that she has little understanding of history or feminism.
And 5!!! kids---why would she think that this is ok when the earth is groaning under the weight of excess humans.

yikes.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 31 August 2008 07:49 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Mercy, I do not read that as such, I read that as what the services were prior to her Budget in 2006.

In fact, I read that she got rid of it along with regulating abortions.



Could be. I've been looking and have seen a lot of contradictory evidence as to what the hell she thinks about contraception.

From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 31 August 2008 07:51 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
And 5!!! kids---why would she think that this is ok when the earth is groaning under the weight of excess humans
As a parent I find the idea that simply having kids makes you a bad person a little offensive.

From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 August 2008 08:31 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
As a parent I find the idea that simply having kids makes you a bad person a little offensive.

Well, you might as well get over being offended, as it does, just like the billions of other bad people in the world who doing things that other people think they are bad for doing.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 02 September 2008 12:39 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This woman must be evil personified if she can force her teenage daughter and son to do things against their wills. 18 and 19 year olds make their own decisions. I wish I could force my children to be as progressive as she is forcing hers to be the opposite. IMO while they may be brainwashed after listening to their mother they are young adults.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 02 September 2008 01:47 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All women taken to task in politics are rapidly treated as 'evil personified'... perhaps because of the company they would keep.
It seems to be par for the (obstacle) course.

[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 September 2008 05:26 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
All women taken to task in politics are rapidly treated as 'evil personified'... perhaps because of the company they would keep.
It seems to be par for the (obstacle) course.


Ya, think that goes back to the good old Garden of Eden operant conditioning to re-enforce patriarchy, Martin?

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 02 September 2008 05:52 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
EVE WUZ FRAMED (classic feminist graffiti)
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hunt the Thimble
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13047

posted 06 September 2008 06:47 AM      Profile for Hunt the Thimble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
This is by no means an endorsement of their position (I strongly believe the opposite) but this is Feminists for Life's "feminist argument" against abortion

While I've certainly known pro-life feminists, this organization does not strike me as one that most of them would wish to be associated with. They seem like "feminists" in the sense that REAL Women are "feminists" - first-wave, socially conservative, "angel of the home" (as Will Ferguson puts it). They also seem, like many pro-life groups, to be rather interested in legislative activism, which I think is unfortunate. I wish that pro-life organizations would place more of an emphasis on improving the quality of life of women who are liable to choose abortions. I think this would be more effective in terms of achieving their stated objectives of reducing the number of abortions than outlawing the same (were abortions really that uncommon before they were legalized?)

But then I'm a maverick in the abortion debate, and not likely to impress anyone staunchly on one "side" or the other with my reflections.

[ 06 September 2008: Message edited by: Hunt the Thimble ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 06 September 2008 08:16 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So, a discussion about abortion it is.

I read the link to "Feminists for Life" against my better judgement. It was written 9 years ago and quotes extensively from white feminist canonical icons. Sadly, the presence of a few feminists of colour in the TOC sidebar does nothing to counter-balance this.

The truth is, FFL calls for more services (gov't and private) for pregnant women in need, which I support. The problem is, these services don't involve abortion as an option or birth control information.

Their rhetoric is highly middle-class and white, which, while fine, as long as that's their audience, goes on as if they are speaking for all women, a rhetorical flourish I had hoped died out a few decades ago. Alas, my hopes are extinguished.

Oh yeah, and they repeat the classic lies about abortion of the anti-choice propagandists. The one that angers me the most is

quote:
Coercive and unethical counselors lie to vulnerable women and pressure them.

And as always, I hate the emphasis on teen pregnancies. But I know there's another thread about that.

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 06 September 2008 08:41 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I read this
quote:
...quotes extensively from white feminist canonical icons...
, I just had to look, thinking this referred to current feminists.
They are talking about *two* women from 150 years ago: Anthony and Stanton. I think it is fair to acknowledge that white feminists today are practically unanimous in their support for reproductive rights for all women.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 September 2008 09:05 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hunt the Thimble:
While I've certainly known pro-life feminists,
Have thought about this statement of yours, in consideration with Timebandit's, and reflected upon the many women I have met, and known, over the years, to see if any met a so called "pro-life" feminist model.

And I would have to yes and no.

Yes, in the fact that in some areas they followed, what some would perceive, as feminist actions based upon some femist premises or thoughts. For example, kicking shitty husbands to the curb, instead of staying and being a "good wife", raised children as a single parent while holding down professional jobs, in a couple of cases adopting children long before it became a fairly regular occurance by single women, being high profile community leaders and/or active in the community volunteer sector, or had a partnered family, a sharing of householder life, while pursuing a independant career path of their choice.

And no, in the sense that they were first wave feminists, or perhaps even feminists at all.

Yes, they understood/stand that they had/have more rights than did their mothers and grandmothers, that were fought for by other women, and appreciated the gains women had made in equality. But that is where it ended, or ends, as they were, or are, divorced from actually believing in, or grasping what true equality actually is and they fully believe that women automatically feel the need to be mothers, and if they don't something must be wrong with them.

It seems to me they have adopted a socially conservative life-style, including regular church attendance and service, in order to, perhaps unconsciously, compensate for their breaches in being a "good woman" in other areas, and some which are very personal that are no one else's business. They function within a internalized conceptual framework that holds, for truth; that a patriarchial society is the only framework that is correct and righteous, and somehow they are wrong for being independant in some areas.

They have no real understanding of an egalitarian society. And I have observed that those who do not have a spouse/partner feel "less than" others in society and thus are always looking for the "right man".

This has lead some of them to enter into successive extremely bad relationships, where they were taken for everything.

Some were/are pro-life, and infertile, because they had had an illegal abortion. In those cases their religious leaning were driven by some sort of misplaced guilt. And I have never fully understood, where the disconnect was/is in their understanding that abortions need to be legal and safe, so that other women, who face choices such as theirs, do not end up as they did.

As such, I would never consider them "feminists" just the partial benefitters of feminism.

quote:
But then I'm a maverick in the abortion debate, and not likely to impress anyone staunchly on one "side" or the other with my reflections.
You would have to detail this, as really there is no abortion debate, and it is not a nuanced reality, even though some would try to make it so, such as EMay.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hunt the Thimble
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13047

posted 06 September 2008 01:18 PM      Profile for Hunt the Thimble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Regular church attendance is a mark of social conservatism? That's going to be news to many of my churchgoing friends, not least of all the gay and lesbian ones.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 September 2008 02:16 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay how about regular church attendance in anything but a Unitarian Church?

No self-respecting gay man or gayelle (new term I like for bi and gay women) would be caught dead in a church that preached their love was a sin.

Just to add - No, a woman who is against abortion is no feminist. Clearly being against abortion means these so-called feminists would not allow other women to have a choice.

I really hate it when the right co-opts stuff from the left.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 September 2008 02:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting quote you pulled, bigcitygal, where anti-choicers accuse pro-choice agencies of having "coercive and unethical counselors [who] lie to vulnerable women and pressure them."

Um, no, that would be the pro-life agencies like Birthright. Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice agencies tell women about ALL their choices. The pro-life agencies are filled with lying, scheming asshole misogynists who disguise their services as pro-choice, in hopes that they can either convince women not to have abortions, or delay them until it's too late to have one. They are the lowest of the low, the absolute scum of the earth.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 September 2008 02:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Okay how about regular church attendance in anything but a Unitarian Church?

No, you're wrong. There are lots of people who attend church regularly who are progressive. Even evangelical churches. It does happen. I knew quite a few of them at one point in my life.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 September 2008 03:06 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hunt the Thimble:
Regular church attendance is a mark of social conservatism? That's going to be news to many of my churchgoing friends, not least of all the gay and lesbian ones.

Though I perceive your meta comment to be a bit of a derail from the topic at hand, and that my comment was really self evident and could really not be taken, as you have tried to skew it, I will further clarify.

I said; "regular church attendance and service", is one of the aspects of their social conservatism. However, now I will put a qualifier in there of mainly fundamentalist church attendance and service, or more traditional churches such as Catholic and Anglican.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 06 September 2008 05:42 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
martin, the use of feminists in the FFL piece was to "prove" that one can be a feminist and be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion". The fact that they had to go back 100 years (well, not Friedan) to find recognized feminists is telling. My issue is, viewing through the lens of critical race theory, is that white feminists are all that matter. Given the subject matter, now that I think about it, I should be happy about that and shut up with that line of criticism. Done.

Church attendance, service, religious community, have come to be loaded issues on babble. They do not prove right-wingedness or general social conservatism, nor does regular attendance / observance of any other religion prove that either.

Michelle: re lies told by the anti-choicers. Yes. I've worked with and known many women who work in health clinics, abortion clinics, health services. Choice really is about choice.

I also hated their language about how awful and traumatic abortion is, also plagiarized from classic anti-choice tomes.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 07 September 2008 07:50 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The church thing bothers me a great deal, too.

Unitarians are not the only liberal church in existence. I have a good friend who is an Anglican minister. She is a feminist. She works, through her very open and liberal church, toward feminist aims, sometimes, or humanist aims. Her congregation is open and welcoming to the GLTB community. While I recognize that Anglicanism as a whole is in a state of turmoil, within it are congregations that are very much pro-feminist and pro-GLBT.

I've also recently read a book by Gretta Vosper. She's a UCC minister in Toronto -- very cool human. She's also the founder of the Centre for Progressive Christianity (link).

It seems there's a whole movement.

I'm finding that the definition of who can and can't be regarded as feminist a little too constricted -- and again, as I've asked several times in this thread and not been answered once (although I'm grateful that Sineed at least acknowledged the question): Who gets to decide who can and can't be feminist? Who sets up what is mutually exclusive? Can any of us insist that we have that right?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 September 2008 08:41 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
The church thing bothers me a great deal, too.
What church thing?

I was merely speaking to the women I have known or know, not in a general manner at all, hunt the thimble decided to take it out of contextual value and I noted that above along with stating a narrower definiton of what churches they, the women I know, go to.

I also, know a good many women who I would call feminists, who are also regular attenders of church, and indeed the Anglican/United Church minister here in town is a strong feminist voice.

But that is not the topic, it is a question about could pro-life women be feminists, and I said no, in my personal opinion and experience. And I explained why I think that the women who say they are feminists, but yet are prolife, have merely utilized enhanced woman's rights, but are not indeed feminists.

quote:
I'm finding that the definition of who can and can't be regarded as feminist a little too constricted
where did you see a definition of feminism in this thread, let alone a constricted one?

quote:
Who gets to decide who can and can't be feminist? Who sets up what is mutually exclusive?
It is all about equality rights, personal privacy, personal choices and freedom of conscience.

Earlier in this thread you stated

quote:
I also have a slight quibble with the phrase "compelled to give their life into the service of another". That takes the pro-choice argument out of the realm of the physical and opens the door to other questions,such as whether a man should have to support a child when he hasn't chosen to be a father. One could make the argument that this is a version of being compelled to give one's life over, in a sense. I think that's a slightly flawed definition

I indicated to you that not only was it not flawed, that indeed it is the wording of the criminal code law used by the SCC, to determine women's full equality rights parameters. Which I notice you completely ignored.

I also indicated if a woman cannot accept full equality rights for women, then I do not believe they have feminists beliefs, and indeed would impose their personal beliefs upon another woman by way of denying pro-choice, by not accepting, or not understanding, or both, woman's full equality rights.

quote:
Can any of us insist that we have that right?
Each and every one of us can individually choose, or not choose, what our personal criteria is for the label feminist, and we have the right to do so. What other people think of our opinion of whether or nor they are a feminist, is up to them.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 08 September 2008 06:56 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's Feministing's take on the whole "Sarah Palin is a Feminist" idea.

Note to mainstream media: Sarah Palin is NOT a feminist

It includes a bunch of links to articles that not-so-accurately paint Palin as a feminist.

quote:
The mainstream media seems confused these days. It appears that because Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin is a woman, she is also a feminist. And not just a feminist, but THE feminist - a sign that all is right in the world when it comes to gender equity. But how could that be, you ask? How could anyone paint Palin - whose policies make it all too clear that she's about as anti-feminist as they come - as feminism's second coming? Well, by pithy misleading headlines - that's how!

The Wall Street Journal: Sarah Palin Feminism

Townhall: Sarah Palin: A Liberated Woman

LA Times: Sarah Palin's 'new feminism' is hailed

NPR: Sarah Palin: New Face Of Feminism?

Adweek: Feminism's Next Wave

The New York Post: A Feminist Dream at the GOP

Even more interesting is that the reporters touting this Palin-as-feminist nonsense are people who pretty much know jack shit about feminism.



From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hunt the Thimble
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13047

posted 08 September 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for Hunt the Thimble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Palin is a classic third-wave feminist, benefiting from all that came before her in terms of the women's movement..."

I don't know if that's hilarious or tragic. I can think of a few women I know who have benefited from feminism while opposing its principles. (There's nothing more saddening to me as a male than being put in the position of having to argue for feminism to a woman who has chosen to collaborate with patriarchy ).


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 September 2008 12:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it interesting that Palin feels free to call herself (or let other people call her) a feminist, when during Clinton's campaign, I noticed that she went out of her way NOT to call herself a feminist.

Conservative fundies can call themselves whatever they want as long as they toe the patriarchal line. Whereas even centrist women have to be really careful about calling themselves feminists publicly or else they get labelled a ball-busting bitch.

But that's always the way. People who break glass ceilings are never radicals. The first few get through by supporting the system and stroking the egos and being as unthreatening as possible. But they're still necessary, because until they get through, no one gets through.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683

posted 08 September 2008 01:28 PM      Profile for George Victor        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Palin has re-defined feminism, bringing it to an entirely different meaning than its 1960s, "third-wave" beginnings.

Here's Penney Kome on recent militant feminist history:

(quote)
David Frum, who gained prominence here and in the US, opined that feminism was almost as dangerous as communism. Conrad Black's National Post hired on half a dozen vocal anti-feminist women columnists. As a journalist who specialized in covering women's issues (I wrote the Woman's Place column in Homemaker's Magazine 1976-1988) and who published six books on women's issues, I can tell you that the market for that kind of coverage practically disappeared. I co-wrote the "A Woman's View" column in the Calgary Herald 1990-94. When Conrad Black and Paul Demerais bought a controlling share in Southam, the Herald let go all of its three feminist columnists.

Feminists haven't gone away or given up. The stories are still out there. Women's groups have suffered major funding losses and many have shut their doors. But feminists are still organizing, still winning important victories, still recruiting young women. You asked specifically about women losing ground in Parliament. Doris Anderson led the campaign for proportional representation, and many women are still dedicated to that issue (see equalvoice.ca ) Leaf.ca is another group that's still active, still winning court challenges.
(end of quote)
-----------------------------------------

(quoting Michelle, above):
[QUOTE]
I find it interesting that Palin feels free to call herself (or let other people call her) a feminist, when during Clinton's campaign, I noticed that she went out of her way NOT to call herself a feminist.
[ END QUOTE]


I find it beyond interesting - I'm totally mystified as to how these people can instantly revise the historical meaning of concepts, so that up is down, left is right, and anti-feminists become "feminists".


From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 08 September 2008 04:24 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hunt the Thimble: There's nothing more saddening to me as a male than being put in the position of having to argue for feminism to a woman who has chosen to collaborate with patriarchy.
Oh, fucking boo hoo hoo!

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 08 September 2008 05:47 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
George Victor: Palin has re-defined feminism, bringing it to an entirely different meaning than its 1960s, "third-wave" beginnings.

No, she hasn't redefined a damn thing.

Even if we could ignore her anti-abortion, anti-birth control information and anti-sex education stances, she isn't a feminist just because she and others say she is.

Unlike some other babblers here, I don't think feminism is all in what any individual says it is. No, you don't have to have studied women's studies or gender studies, but it can be really helpful to read about, and talk about, feminism as women have lived and documented it, not how the mainstream media presents it.

And I believe Michelle said in another thread, real feminists get slagged and humiliated and insulted when they take any type of progressive stance. Palin ain't no feminist. Nothing she has done on the record or off can be construed to be feminist in any way.

And no, having a history of paid employment outside the home does not make a woman a feminist for cripe's sake. It makes her an employed woman whose family needs the income from her job. Working class women have worked for pay, both outside and in the home for, well, ever.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683

posted 08 September 2008 06:15 PM      Profile for George Victor        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, she is not a feminist...as it came to be defined in the 60s and 70s, put forward by Penney Kome, and as you and I know it. Too many contradictions.

But if David Frum could find the old one threatening, obviously her "portrayal" of feminism is not his idea of feminism. And he isn't complaining...although he finds her a bad choice for the GOP.

So I think she is trying to redefine it...and with the confused and ignorant state of the great U.S. unread, you can sell anything with enough admen onside. And lots of chuzpah. So now we have two "public" ideas of feminism. Unless lots of people make hers a joke, unmarketable.

But tell me, please - has anyone heard of another person trying this recently - or is she THE one to try to break the mould?


From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 08 September 2008 08:52 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What church thing?

This one:

quote:
It seems to me they have adopted a socially conservative life-style, including regular church attendance and service, in order to, perhaps unconsciously, compensate for their breaches in being a "good woman" in other areas, and some which are very personal that are no one else's business. They function within a internalized conceptual framework that holds, for truth; that a patriarchial society is the only framework that is correct and righteous, and somehow they are wrong for being independant in some areas.

Which is, IMO, stereotypical bullshit, and this:

quote:
Okay how about regular church attendance in anything but a Unitarian Church?
No self-respecting gay man or gayelle (new term I like for bi and gay women) would be caught dead in a church that preached their love was a sin.

Which implies that only the Unitarians are GLTB friendly, which is also bullshit.

quote:
where did you see a definition of feminism in this thread, let alone a constricted one?

You're being too literal, for one thing.

There's a general definition that seems to be a given on babble, and has been for a long time. It's evident in this thread -- for example, it's impossible for a woman to be a feminist and be pro-life, even if she hits all the other notes. That is a constriction of the definition itself. You may feel justified in constricting the definition, but it is a constriction all the same.

quote:
I indicated to you that not only was it not flawed, that indeed it is the wording of the criminal code law used by the SCC, to determine women's full equality rights parameters. Which I notice you completely ignored.

Missed it. I have a life that frequently takes me away from the computer, riveting as our conversations are.

It's ludicrous to suggest that just because the Supreme Court says something that we are bound to agree with it and that it can't be flawed. It frequently is. Personally, I think the wording isn't so hot. Who knows? Maybe someday they'll find they need to change it.

Anything's possible.

quote:
Each and every one of us can individually choose, or not choose, what our personal criteria is for the label feminist, and we have the right to do so. What other people think of our opinion of whether or nor they are a feminist, is up to them.

If that's the case, is there any meaningful definition?

And, if that is indeed the case, what's to stop someone like Sarah Palin from claiming it?


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 September 2008 09:15 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
This one:

The "they" being referred was a select "they" in respect to the women, I know, but hey, don't let facts, that were repeated twice, get in the way.

quote:
There's a general definition that seems to be a given on babble, and has been for a long time. It's evident in this thread -- for example, it's impossible for a woman to be a feminist and be pro-life, even if she hits all the other notes
I do not know if there is a general definition here, having never saw one, but I have to agree it is impossible.

And I have to thank the Goddess that its the SCC looking out for women's rights, as opposed to other women.

quote:
It's ludicrous to suggest that just because the Supreme Court says something that we are bound to agree with it and that it can't be flawed. It frequently is. Personally, I think the wording isn't so hot. Who knows? Maybe someday they'll find they need to change it.

Anything's possible.



BTW, you are definitley getting close to stating that pro-choice rights should be changed and are wrong, me thinks.

quote:
If that's the case, is there any meaningful definition?
Yep

quote:
And, if that is indeed the case, what's to stop someone like Sarah Palin from claiming it?
She can claim away, and so can others claim she is, just as other whacks claim they are not wrong and are not abusers, rapists or paedophiles, when they commit acts of physical and sexual autrocities against people and children. Doesn't mean they are correct though.

[ 08 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 08 September 2008 09:23 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And I'm sure you'll continue to go on contradicting yourself while insisting you aren't.

Look, I've been reading babble since 2001, and participating for much of that time in the feminist forum in addition to the rest of the board. That's plenty of exposure to pick up the gist of what is and isn't considered feminist here.

quote:
BTW, you are definitley getting close to stating that pro-choice rights should be changed and are wrong, me thinks.

More like you imagine. I've always personally maintained a pro-choice position, and I've been doing it on this board long enough not to have to defend it. However, I am not the subject of this thread.

Frankly, the fact that you would attempt to smear me in that way because I disagree with you sickens me. I'm done.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 08 September 2008 09:35 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough, as we both were sickened.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 09 September 2008 03:18 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Victor:
I agree, she is not a feminist...as it came to be defined in the 60s and 70s, put forward by Penney Kome, and as you and I know it. Too many contradictions.
George I think you need to know more about feminism of the 1990s, and in the new millenium. Palin ain't no feminist, from any wave, from any era.

quote:
But if David Frum could find the old one threatening, obviously her "portrayal" of feminism is not his idea of feminism. And he isn't complaining...although he finds her a bad choice for the GOP.
David Frum in this instance is like you, he has no idea what women under 30 are doing in the name of feminism. Which, as I said before, is NOT the demographic that Palin belongs to.

quote:

But tell me, please - has anyone heard of another person trying this recently - or is she THE one to try to break the mould?

Again, continuing to repeat that Palin is doing something that can be construed as feminism, is to give legitimacy and validate the lie. Please go on if that's your pleasure, but she's not breaking any mould. There's already been a woman on a VP ticket in the US, many other countries have elected women in higher numbers and to higher positions than the US, many women balance work and family (it always helps to be rich, but many who aren't do it everyday.) Again, the act of doing this is not a feminist act. Or, it can be, but using to prove, de facto, that the woman in question is a feminist, is faulty reasoning.

Who is another person trying to break the mould of what women's roles are? What gender identity is? There are hundreds, thousands. But since they aren't any combination of middle-class, white, straight and able-bodied, the mainstream ignores them.

They're out there, George. The internet is an informative place. Start with Bitch Magazine.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683

posted 09 September 2008 05:49 AM      Profile for George Victor        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I should look around?

Okay, but I'm not sure that we disagree. I'm with Gertrude on this one: "A rose is a rose is a rose", if her thought is taken to be, in this instance, that feminism has always had certain fundamental characteristics - and they have always been a pursuit of social equality.

Some would try to say, with old Wullie, that "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but that, I think, is where we seem to confuse the issue.

It's Palin (and, you are telling me, others, since Frum made that statement back about 2000) who have been trying to make the name "feminism", fit another mould, one they can live with - but which you and I cannot.

Anyway, I will not belabour the point any further. Just one request (regarding this comparison....

(quote)
David Frum in this instance is like you, he has no idea what women under 30 are doing in the name of feminism. Which, as I said before, is NOT the demographic that Palin belongs to.
(end quote)

Any comparing of David Frum and myself has me reaching for the hemlock. Anything but that, ok?

[ 09 September 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]


From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 09 September 2008 03:42 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's Palin (and, you are telling me, others, since Frum made that statement back about 2000) who have been trying to make the name "feminism", fit another mould, one they can live with - but which you and I cannot.

Now, I find this statement intriguing.

Because I don't think Palin and others like her are doing anything in the name of Feminism or Feminism Lite or Right-Wing Anti-Choice Feminism or any other made up names. I think they are benefitting from some of the gains of feminism from the past 40 years (greater admittance to university, greater access to well-paid white collar jobs formerly dominated by white middle class/ruling class men to give just two examples).

In other words, they are where they are, doing what they do because of feminism. Yes! I agree with this.

Again, and I'm getting all semantic on you some more, this doesn't make Palin or her right-wing "sisters" feminists. That's all I wanna say.

Finally, I'm deeply sorry for comparing you in any way to David Frum. That was a low blow, mean, and beneath the tenor of our pleasant exchange. Please forgive me. Such a vile name shouldn't ever be compared to a babbler such as yourself. My apologies.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 09 September 2008 04:08 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The question is not framed properly that is why it is not easy to answer. Pro-life is a term that most of us would say equates to anti-abortion but that is really a re-framing by the right of an issue of personal rights and freedoms. Can a feminist be pro-life, of course they can most humans are. Can a feminist be anti-choice? Now that question is easy of course they can't because that would deny a woman her right to control herself and her body.

When we allow the right to define the debate as pro-life or pro-abortion we allow them to obfuscate the real issue.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 09 September 2008 04:11 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
BCG: In other words, they are where they are, doing what they do because of feminism. Yes! I agree with this.
Anna Quindlen makes this point in this week's edition of Newsweek.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 09 September 2008 04:26 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, Anna and me, we go way back. She asked me for my thoughts before she wrote that.

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 09 September 2008 06:46 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
I will ask anyone, "Is there such thing as a pro-life feminist?"

I think they're just using feminist as a synonym for 'strong woman'. But no way - there's no such thing as a *pro-life feminist*.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683

posted 10 September 2008 07:14 AM      Profile for George Victor        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

I think they're just using feminist as a synonym for 'strong woman'. But no way - there's no such thing as a *pro-life feminist*.

RIGHT ON! Because how could one half of humanity achieve social equality if they did not have control of their re-productive function? Not "maitre chez nous", so to speak (with apologies to the language and the political creators of the concept's original usage for it's use in an attempt at humour on a very serious subject....whew!)

-------------------------------------

And bcg:

quote:

Finally, I'm deeply sorry for comparing you in any way to David Frum. That was a low blow, mean, and beneath the tenor of our pleasant exchange. Please forgive me. Such a vile name shouldn't ever be compared to a babbler such as yourself. My apologies.

Apology gratefully accepted. The hemlock's already tucked away.

[ 10 September 2008: Message edited by: George Victor ]


From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Hunt the Thimble
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13047

posted 12 September 2008 08:31 AM      Profile for Hunt the Thimble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Oh, fucking boo hoo hoo!

quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Now that question is easy of course they can't because that would deny a woman her right to control herself and her body.

What about the child's body? For those who aren't starting from the premise that a foetus isn't a person, it's not so easy. I'm not a woman, so in a sense I don't have much of a dog in this particular fight, but I care deeply about reasoned debate. And preaching to the choir doesn't achieve that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 September 2008 08:37 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What about the child's body? For those who aren't starting from the premise that a foetus isn't a person, it's not so easy.

Then they shouldn't have any abortion. End of story.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 12 September 2008 08:42 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hunt the Thimble:

What about the child's body? For those who aren't starting from the premise that a foetus isn't a person, it's not so easy. I'm not a woman, so in a sense I don't have much of a dog in this particular fight, but I care deeply about reasoned debate. And preaching to the choir doesn't achieve that.


Children have their own human rights when they become children. Sperm are potential children. What laws would you like to see enacted to ensure that none of that precise life giving seed gets wasted?

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 12 September 2008 08:48 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Children have their own human rights when they become children. Sperm are potential children. What laws would you like to see enacted to ensure that none of that precise life giving seed gets wasted?

Bets on how much longer Hunt lasts.

Kropotkin: sperm and fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus are quite different from each other scientifically. Denying the difference does not help pro-choice positions.


From: L'-P- | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 12 September 2008 08:52 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:

Bets on how much longer Hunt lasts.

Kropotkin: sperm and fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus are quite different from each other scientifically. Denying the difference does not help pro-choice positions.



Okay but get a sense of humour. I must say that as a man I will never ever have an abortion. As a progresive man I will fight for a woman's right to decide for herself and if able support her in whatever decision she feels is right for her.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 12 September 2008 08:53 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Children have their own human rights when they become children. Sperm are potential children. What laws would you like to see enacted to ensure that none of that precise life giving seed gets wasted?

A tissue-paper registry.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hunt the Thimble
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13047

posted 12 September 2008 09:08 AM      Profile for Hunt the Thimble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

quote:
Originally posted by Ghislaine:

Bets on how much longer Hunt lasts.



Oh, I'm not going anywhere. I'm enjoying the discussions on this forum, and I want to thank everyone who has been patient with me as I learn the ropes.

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: Hunt the Thimble ]

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: Hunt the Thimble ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 12 September 2008 09:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hunt the Thimble:
What about the child's body? For those who aren't starting from the premise that a foetus isn't a person, it's not so easy. I'm not a woman, so in a sense I don't have much of a dog in this particular fight, but I care deeply about reasoned debate. And preaching to the choir doesn't achieve that.

Just so you know, abortion rights for women are not up for debate on babble. This is a warning, obviously, but since you're a relative newbie, it's a friendly warning.

And whether or not abortion SHOULD be up for debate on babble is also not up for debate. It's a decision we came to a long time ago as a community in order for this to be a pro-choice feminist space, and it is enforced strictly.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 12 September 2008 04:41 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pro-life, pro-choice 2 different arguments (hold mouse over "C-1," then on the right hand side roll out menu, click "Why LLC favor choice"):

quote:
On the one side, the "Pro-Life" people are arguing over:

the boundaries of human life. Because they believe that human life begins at conception, they believe that intentionally ending any human life after conception is immoral. this debate is all about biology, philosophy and/or religion.

On the other side the "Pro-Choice" people are arguing over :

the boundaries of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. They believe that freedom of religion entitles American citizens to live by their own conscience, rather than that of others. this debate is all about laws, politics and/or government.


quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
If Palin wants to go ahead with a pregnancy after 40 without testing for Downs or to wilfully give birth to a child afflicted with it, that is her business (and I'd even say that here when the hefty medical bills are borne by all taxpayers). I think it is absolutely nuts, but it is her choice. But the thought of forcing another woman (who can't afford nannies and other help, and in the US even the horrific medical bills the family will face) to go through with that is unfathomable cruelty.

This is an interesting remark. Leaving aside the abortion question, I think the ethical issues around selection are worth discussing. For example, in terms of babies with Down Syndrome, why would it be nuts for a woman to give birth to such a child? Who are we to say someone with DS isn't having as fulfilling a life as we are? Does this say something about how we as a society value people with disabilities?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 12 September 2008 04:52 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
This is an interesting remark. Leaving aside the abortion question, I think the ethical issues around selection are worth discussing. For example, in terms of babies with Down Syndrome, why would it be nuts for a woman to give birth to such a child? Who are we to say someone with DS isn't having as fulfilling a life as we are? Does this say something about how we as a society value people with disabilities?
I personally have know many families with Downs Syndrome children and adults with Downs Syndrome. I only wish that the rest of us could learn to be as open and loving. They tend to be a joy to be around and many that have received a proper education are employable and live happy productive lives.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 12 September 2008 05:04 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I personally have know many families with Downs Syndrome children and adults with Downs Syndrome. I only wish that the rest of us could learn to be as open and loving. They tend to be a joy to be around and many that have received a proper education are employable and live happy productive lives.

Yeah, people with Down Syndrome are some of the sweetest people you will ever meet and don't have a capacity for cruelty. Yet, we consider them to be "mentally challenged." Perhaps we're the ones who are "challenged" in some way. Then again, we're the ones doing the labeling.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 12 September 2008 05:20 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To quote some of my favourite people who have been labeled.

Label Jars Not People

quote:
People First is an organization that was formed because some of the people in our communities felt that they were not considered as people first. They felt that they were talked about, talked to, thought about, and treated according to the disabilities that others labelled them with.

The founders of People First did not think this was fair. Over the years people have been called mentally handicapped, developmentally disabled, cognitively challenged, intellectually disabled, and many other labels.

In order to avoid hurting peoples' feelings and to avoid using labels when we talk about the many different members of People First, we will use the term people who have been labelled.


People First

[ 12 September 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 12 September 2008 05:25 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks Aristot this discussion has made me understand the deep anger I have been feeling about Palin. She is using their child's label to score political points. Completely reprehensible to me.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca