Watch out. They're gaining on us.
They have a savvy media campaign, hip baby-t's, a nice logo, gorgeous young models offering their wares, and a destructive throwback of a message. They are Feminists For Life, women who believe that "women deserve better than abortion."
I visited their website after hearing an interview on NPR with Jane Roberts, wife of the now-infamous Judge John Roberts, as she discussed her involvement as a pro bono attorney for FFL. Their main platform is that women's issues have yet to be fully addressed (duh) and that abortion is a result of short-sighted, male-oriented policies regarding women's health.
This is, unfortunately, intriguing. I am an ardent pro-choice feminist and I would never even consider taking away the right to personhood that women were granted in Roe v. Wade. But, like any decent human, I don't like abortion. It is a spiritually difficult procedure, emotionally taxing and stigmatized by the majority of Americans. I would be interested in ways to reduce the number of abortions per year in this country. What would these feminists propose to remove the necessity of abortion? Hmmm...
So I checked them out online. Their graphic design is snappy, their rhetoric is deceptively uplifting and empowering. But nowhere (nowhere) on the site do they discuss alternatives or actions. If their mission were realized, women would only have sex for reproduction and would take "responsibility" for their "actions" if an unexpected pregnancy took place. How? By having the child. Even if they're 13 and a victim of incest. Even if they already have six kids and can't afford to give adequate care to another. Even if they don't want to have a child.
They advocate for greater pre-natal and post-natal services for women in the US and abroad, which is great, but not any different from what the feminists for choice are advocating.
It's just a platform, a dressed-up, younger version of Right to Life, a leaping point for "feminists" to join the anti-choice movement and feel welcomed. They don't say anything new. They don't offer alternatives. They have slick packaging (like so many conservative platforms: glam image, same old turn-of-the-century misogynist message) and they're out in force on college campuses.
Why can't pro-choice groups be this slick? Why are we always so staid and proper, so intellectual and polite?
I visited their website after hearing an interview on NPR with Jane Roberts, wife of the now-infamous Judge John Roberts, as she discussed her involvement as a pro bono attorney for FFL. Their main platform is that women's issues have yet to be fully addressed (duh) and that abortion is a result of short-sighted, male-oriented policies regarding women's health.
This is, unfortunately, intriguing. I am an ardent pro-choice feminist and I would never even consider taking away the right to personhood that women were granted in Roe v. Wade. But, like any decent human, I don't like abortion. It is a spiritually difficult procedure, emotionally taxing and stigmatized by the majority of Americans. I would be interested in ways to reduce the number of abortions per year in this country. What would these feminists propose to remove the necessity of abortion? Hmmm...
So I checked them out online. Their graphic design is snappy, their rhetoric is deceptively uplifting and empowering. But nowhere (nowhere) on the site do they discuss alternatives or actions. If their mission were realized, women would only have sex for reproduction and would take "responsibility" for their "actions" if an unexpected pregnancy took place. How? By having the child. Even if they're 13 and a victim of incest. Even if they already have six kids and can't afford to give adequate care to another. Even if they don't want to have a child.
They advocate for greater pre-natal and post-natal services for women in the US and abroad, which is great, but not any different from what the feminists for choice are advocating.
It's just a platform, a dressed-up, younger version of Right to Life, a leaping point for "feminists" to join the anti-choice movement and feel welcomed. They don't say anything new. They don't offer alternatives. They have slick packaging (like so many conservative platforms: glam image, same old turn-of-the-century misogynist message) and they're out in force on college campuses.
Why can't pro-choice groups be this slick? Why are we always so staid and proper, so intellectual and polite?
posted by Jackie at 8:06 AM
3 Comments:
While they don't come out and explicitly state that women should only have sex for reproduction, it is implied in their materials. They state that "FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraeption have had adverse affects on women," and that "some of their members support the use of non-abortifacient contraception, while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons."
While they claim that addressing "preconception" issues is beyond their mission, this omission invalidates their entire argument. If women are getting pregnant (and they are), advocating for the removal of abortion as a choice is akin to saying "just don't do it."
They advocate for informed decision making and planned motherhood. This is such a middle-class, bourgois attitude. The fact of the matter is that there are so many women who do not have the initial information to avoid pregnancy, or do not have the family, social, or financial support to bear and/or raise a child. For these women, many times abortion is a reasonable, empowering decision.
Maybe you can explain to me what you think their position is? Because I can't quite figure it out.
What they ARE saying is that a woman who is pregnant should carry the fetus to term and have the child. Regardless of wishes. This, in itself, is a disempowering, anti-feminist attitude. I understand that there is a history of feminists who were against abortion, but you can't discount the fact that procedures are infinitely more safe and reliable now than they ever have been. Feminists in the past were against procedures that were harmful; they were harmful, in part, due to their illicit nature. Once the right to have an abortion became law, it was able to be regulated and, as such, became much safer.
My reference to underpriviliged women was not a stratifying statement - it was a reminder and an inclusion of all women. Poor and underserved women are so often left out of the debate.
I understand that this is one issue that is never going to shift for most people. There are many feminists out there who are uncomfortable with the nature of abortion, and this movement is their chance to find their niche.
My point is simply that FFL does not lay out their plan for solving the "abortion issue." They simply state that women should't have them. You state that there are other options for women who don't want to carry or bear children. FFL doesn't state what they are. The adoption option disregards women who don't want to carry a child to term, or for whom the emotional trauma of doing so would be damaging.
Can you point out to me where they state the other so-called options?
Thank you for your comments. Maybe you should start your own blog. Or consider a career as a linguistics instructor or a debate coach.
As I said before, this is an issue for which there is little room for compromise on either side.
I'm glad to have gotten someone so riled up. The fact of the matter is this: we will never agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home