|
|
|
|
What Feminism "Really
Means" Part Three of Three By Dave Andrusko The headlines were, respectively, "It's off to feminist camp" and "Looking at what feminism really means." One appears at Huffingtonpost.com, the other in the Fresno Bee newspaper. Each falls somewhere between first-ditch and last-ditch pro-abortion response to the increasingly compelling case that being pro-life and a feminist is more than just compatible, they go hand in hand. The former contribution, written by Stephanie Hughes, is simultaneously too easy to caricature and so absurd as to defy caricature. For our purposes, what's fascinating is that a camp designed to "learn how to be a feminist" also includes a "safe place" for an adult slumber party where women can share that [secret?] abortion. The latter, by Professor Kathryn Forbes, is a frontal assault on "columnists and these anti-choice female candidates parading as feminists" who are so "ignorant" as to fail to grasp that "Keeping abortion safe, legal, and accessible is necessary for feminist societal transformation." Anything else is "bargaining with patriarchy" says this associate professor of women's studies at California State University, Fresno. What is the unforgiveable sin? "[S]elling out women using the language of feminism without adhering to its politics." And first and foremost among those "politics" is abortion then, abortion now, abortion forever. Failing to salute the pro-abortion flag is bad enough, worse yet is the "continual portrayal of abortion leading to the emotional devastation of women." According to Forbes, this is all bunk, just a "tactic of right-wing conservative groups to quash pro-choice activism." The "real emotional turmoil" she insists is not the abortion itself "but is a response to the terrible circumstances in which the choice to have an abortion is made." Alas, this has been so successful a charge that "pro-choice groups now frequently preface their remarks with the language of difficult choice." Forbes ends her op-ed with the angry insistence that the aforementioned "columnists" and "anti-choice female candidates" stop "pontificating about a feminism that you do not understand and about history of which you are ignorant." Diatribes like Forbes' rant can be extremely helpful, because they reveal weaknesses in the pro-abortion armor and particular points of sensitivity. They are very nervous about the historical truth that 19th century feminists were very anti-abortion. To hear their foremothers speak in life-affirming language makes them very edgy. And they are smart enough to fully realize the threat this poses to the sale of abortion as a positive "good" to women. What if abortion is instead associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (see Part Three), or a host of physical, emotional, and psychological after-shocks? What if abortion after 20 weeks takes the life of a child that can and does experience pain? What if an abortion--which so many women submit to in order to "save" a relationship--almost inevitably terminates not only the baby's life but the relationship? No wonder pro-abortion feminists like Forbes lash out in anger and bitterness. The Big Lie cannot stand even Small Dosages of the truth. Please send all of your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like join those who are now following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |