Ms P finds feminism a “lonely and exhausting place”. She also describes herself as a “bitch”.

Could there be a connection here?

(And yes, I do enjoy this kind of patriarchal sexism, because the only kind of patriarchal sexism worth having is the kind you can get away with)

You are becoming boring, Laurie. This article shows you wrestling with your conscience in an attempt to justify yourself, but you wriggle so hard that I actually lost count of the number of times you squeal in contradiction to yourself – the previous thread has clearly changed your thinking.

You may like integrity, but I’ve got to challenge you to answer Sunny’s question about what is integral to feminism (considering reproductive autonomy has only come to the forefront of feminist debate during relatively modern times and other than that you fail to put your finger on any specific point – though according to your first paragraph this would seem to be a self-declared speciality).

If it is equality which is central to feminism, then how do you rationalise dictating to others that ‘it doesn’t work like that’ without exposing the gulf between your closely-held belief and the way you put this into practise?

Laurie,

Some of the commentators (all male) doggedly insisted and re-insisted that, although they themselves were of course pro-choice, feminism should open its doctrinal heart to so-called ‘feminists for life’.
…
No. I won’t accept that every woman who says she is a feminist is one. It’s emphatically not a case of absolutely everyone’s feminism being equally valid.

It seems to me you’ve missed the point, no-one is saying it’s all “equally valid” (what does that mean, anyway?), or that everyone who says they are X must be X – the latter is easy to refute (I cannot be a lesbian if I’m male, for example) – or that feminism (or rather, some people who identify as feminists) “should open its doctrinal heart to so-called ‘feminists for life’” (or rather, some people who identify as feminists but who are anti-abortion).

I would struggle to convince anyone that I’m a feminist if I claim that “a woman is a lower form of life than a man, her needs should be considered secondary to a man’s, she should stay at home, she should not seek employment, clean and cook, make sure dinner is on the table for the man of the house when he comes home, and that the kids are quiet and tucked away in bed, and post- dinner party she and her friends should remain gossiping and knitting in the parlour while the men discuss politics in the drawing room” etc.

Last try:

There is a set of people who identify themselves as Christians. There are subsets, or denominations, and they hold beliefs common to Christians and beliefs common only within specific denominations. Now, there is a denomination that does not believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and those people think all the other people who do believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity aren’t Christians. Yet every other aspect of their faith is the same (aside from, say, which translation of the Bible is preferred – but such a disagreement isn’t a clincher).

It’s not okay to call yourself a feminist if you would deny women the right to make those choices, deny them basic personal sovereignty and physical autonomy

But the abortion argument occurs because there is a disagreement not over ‘personal sovereignty’ and ‘physical autonomy’ in the sense of control over your own body but over whether control over your own body should also include control over “any given clutch of jellied pre-human cells” inside your body.

You might not have any other dispute with them at all, just over this one thing (which is obviously extremely important, I don’t intend to belittle it) – for you, it is equivalent to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the clincher in determining who is and who is not a ‘real’ Christian.

That is the point that it seemed Lee was making: that these people may hold every other belief common to feminism but disagree over this one.

Now there may be other issues with Palin specifically – I’m sure there are – about where she believes the woman’s place to be, and so on. Fine. But I am just talking about this one issue, which is also an issue of semantics because it involves the meanings of words – and, as thomas said,

So a clearer understanding of the label as no more than a subset of prior political beliefs by which that political philosophy can be applied to specific problematic questions is essential to contending and defeating the propositions and prescriptions you dislike or disagree with.

Otherwise it is you who is “sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘laa-laa-laa, I can’t hear you!’”.

By saying that “those people cannot be feminists”, you have potentially lost their support, their comradeship, their willingness to hear what you have to say. It seems a bit short-sighted and irrational. The world can be a lonely place without support.

Some took wilful refusal to listen to the point of actual aggression, the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘laa-laa-laa, I can’t hear you!’

This seems an odd thing to write – anyone reading that discussion will see that pretty much all your opponents remained fairly civil in the face of (relatively for LC) extreme heat. Are you being honest with us, and yourself?

I never tried to say you should open your arms to accept feminists for life, I don’t think anyone defined a particular group. Once again ukliberty as summarised my view perfectly here again, and it’s clear getting drawn in to an argument on this issue is going to go nowhere given the sheer tenacity of your views, Laurie.

What I will ask is what the point of this article is? It essentially says the same thing as the Palin article, making a post of the views that you and others made in the comments thread of the Palin article. What is clear that for all your tenacity on the issue, there are those of us that are equally stubborn when it comes to the separate view on the argument, and this article doesn’t seem to offer any road through that difference.

I do agree on one point, I think the debate needs to move on to new ground. What new ground though.

ukliberty:
That is the point that it seemed Lee was making: that these people may hold every other belief common to feminism but disagree over this one.

Yes, but as Laurie and I and others keep stating, its not possible to be contemptuous about women’s rights and choices and still be feminist. The religious right inevitably are because they feel others deserve to have priority.

What was interesting I thought was Cath Elliott’s post. It talked about how abortion could also be seen as a tool to further keep women ‘in their place’. For some bizarre reason, Lee took that as a confirmation of his own point, but it isn’t.

The reason why religious right ‘feminists’ like Sarah Palin argue against abortion comes from a completely different place to how feminists like Germaine Greer, who see it as a way for men to carry on as before. The intentions are different – and that matters.
The question is, do you want women to be able to have complete control over their bodies or not (either way on abortion)… so GG would say yes, while Sarah Palin would say no – because she thinks God should have control.

This is why their approach to rights of women is different, and because feminism is fundamentally about the rights of women, while GG can be a feminist, Palin cannot. Its not really about owning a label, but fundamentally about what defines a movement.

If you claim to subscribe to any political or cultural philosophy, there will be fundamentals that have to be agreed. In the case of feminism, a fundamental is equality of sexes. The fundamentals are broad and generic. Within a political or cultural movement, there may be further opinion check boxes with which you may agree or disagree. If you agree with most of the check boxes, you’ll be happy to support the movement.

Many of us believe that cultural and ethical concerns make abortion rights a check box item rather than a fundamental of feminism. By enforcing abortion rights as a fundamental of feminism, you are excluding people who place more weight on equal opportunities, fair pay, family rights, anti-domestic violence, male responsibility etc.

Laurie states that a new generation of activist feminists are put off by in-fighting, but what could be a greater barrier than placing abortion rights as a fundamental?

“What was interesting I thought was Cath Elliott’s post. It talked about how abortion could also be seen as a tool to further keep women ‘in their place’. For some bizarre reason, Lee took that as a confirmation of his own point, but it isn’t.”

It was an example of how you could be feminist AND anti-choice, how wasn’t it a confirmation of my point that Laurie, in stating “You can’t be feminist and oppose choice”, was not quite correct with that statement?

“This is why their approach to rights of women is different, and because feminism is fundamentally about the rights of women, while GG can be a feminist, Palin cannot. Its not really about owning a label, but fundamentally about what defines a movement.”

What you are saying is it is impossible to be feminist and religious to the degree of following what certain aspects of the bible tells them. Right? You’re happy claiming that you simply can’t believe in central themes of Christianity and in feminism also?

If a woman who believes in equal rights and resents male domination happens to believe that abortionn is morally wrong on non-religious grounds i.e. she believe the unborn child is just as “alive” as a born child, how can she not be a feminist? In the same way there are libertarians who believe in complete freedom of choice but are nevertheless opposed to abortion because they believe that the unborn child has rights that cannot be violated.

thomas: “I’ve got to challenge you to answer Sunny’s question about what is integral to feminism… If it is equality which is central to feminism, then how do you rationalise”

Sunny: “because feminism is fundamentally about the rights of women”

Lee: “You’re happy claiming that you simply can’t believe in central themes of Christianity and in feminism also?”

What all these posts seem to have in common is the idea that there are philosophical ideas which either make up feminism, or are integral to feminism. If this is true, there is an associated philosophical problem (although, in my view, not a particularly interesting or important one) of whether categories can be logically defined, whether they can be agreed and what you do when there is a lack of agreement. Those seem to be the questions which Lee is addressing.

But that’s not how I see feminism, (or socialism for that matter). The concept of “can you tick enough boxes to be considered feminist” seems warped to me. It’s already been said that feminism is more of a movement than a philosophical idea. More relevant than a cetnral idea is a way of seeing the world, and of behaving in response to it. So key considerations could be “whose side do you take in a given context”, “are you active in challenging patriarchy” or “do you diminish, patronise, demonise women as a group”, or [insert other example]. If adopting a pro-choice position negates one of these considerations then you’re not a feminst. It’s no longer about whether you can possibly hold competing ideas and beliefs in your mind together but about what the consequences of your actions are and if they are damaging or supportive to the project of feminism.

Thus I don’t think it’s possible to be a feminist and anti-choice. Not because choice is an IDEA that is fundamental to feminism but because in expressing an anti-choice position you automatically diminish women and take sides with people oppressing women and I don’t think those actions are compatible with being a feminist.

This is basically just a way of restating the point Laurie made in the previous thread about empathy being as or more important in rational arugment than philosophical logic, but some people maybe missed it or didn’t see the full extent of it the first time.

Happy to be told that this is wrong or stupid, with the caveat that if it’s only said by men I won’t take it seriously.

in expressing an anti-choice position you automatically diminish women and take sides with people oppressing women

Does not follow.

“Thus I don’t think it’s possible to be a feminist and anti-choice. Not because choice is an IDEA that is fundamental to feminism but because in expressing an anti-choice position you automatically diminish women”

I won’t labour on this, but this is an opinion not a fact. It’s an opinion I agree with, but a women can also see that a woman is diminished if she allows herself to end a life, pre-birth or otherwise, and such you can’t diminish her rights by stopping her from having abortion, you may feel on some level that you’re saving her.

Much the way that we legislate in health and safety law to make people wear hats on building sites and go through training to be able to carry out dangerous activities or tasks…we’re not diminishing the opportunity to take part in activities that are dangerous, and we’re not diminishing the choice is how people carry out those activities, we’re protecting people…that’s how I can see an argument coming from an anti-choice person.

I also don’t necessarily see there being a logical argument here about you not being able to be a feminist if you are “diminishing women” by your choice, because as I’ve said before…all you need is to go a logical step further (say towards men being given less opportunity than women, as an example) and look back and say your choices are being diminished by law existing that conflicts with your world view. Suddenly that person is then the feminist and everyone else is not unless they agree with the lesser “diminished” situation.

Of course I’ve seen people like Laurie claim that these sort of women are extremists, it’s all about where you stand and what your starting perspective is really, isn’t it?

Well, I said I wouldn’t labour on it…then I did, apologies!

The last thread was the socialists putting their case, this thread is about them admitting the errors of their way and trying to save face.

I think we attach to much importance to -isms. People should be free to believe whatever it is they want to believe in (pro-choice, pro-life). We shouldn’t forget that beliefs are formed as a result of key events in a person’s life that cannot be simply wiped away. If someone firmly believes that abortion is bad, they won’t budge, because something in the way they grew up, or any events along the way, has shaped that individual’s view on the subject and of the world.

As for the idea of “holding hands”, etc., I don’t buy that. Some groups try it, but it always becomes an “echo chamber”. The beauty of life is there are an infinite number of opinions and views on just about any subject under the sun.

Thomas @ 13,

I’ll try again. Honestly for the last time! There is absolutely no point in labelling yourself as anything if you do not agree with the core concepts of the idea. There is nothing wrong with saying you are a fellow traveller. If for instance someone is a Christian, and fundamentally believes that life begins at conception rules, then hey!, that’s fine. It is however a complete cheat to claim that that is feminism.

It is, frankly, a recognition that something, in this case misguided Christian beliefs, hold more sway for you than anything else. It is just a different way of being, that’s all.

It is however unreasonable to undermine feminism by pretending it is what the Sarah Palins’ of this world say it is. And, you and Lee ought to be clear, that is exactly what Sarah Palin, and her ilk, are doing.

The hypocrisy is in trying to have your cake and eat it. And I can quite understand why feminists are as mad as hell at being subverted.

Oh no not this again.

YOU CAN’T BE A FEMINIST AND ANTI ABORTION. Why?

Because anti abortionists don’t just want to stop themselves from having an abortion, they want to stop all woman from having an abortion. I, as a feminist am quite happy with a woman’s right to be pro life. Just as long as it only applies to her. If she wants to have her baby, and stay at home for the rest of her life, then that is fine with me.

But……..

Don’t use the power of the state to impose that on me.

And as far as Lee and our student philosophers are concerned, I really wish that men could give birth. Because if they could, abortion would be legal in a heartbeat, all over the world.

sally,

Point.

I don’t see where the argument is.

Perhaps Lee and Thomas could find a case to argue that took your position on board?

Somehow, I doubt it.

They are just wrong.

So by that logic everyone who defends the legality of abortion is a feminist.

Yet nobody would call me a feminist.

Thomas,

Well, your part of the way there then. If you also subscribed – and I think you probably do – to ideas like equality of opportunity, freedom of choice for women and stuff like that, you’d be a closet feminist. Just not brave enough to come out of the cupboard!

Sorry Dougie, I just don’t think any belief system which considers anything less the whole population is an adequate way of building a worldview.

Thomas,

I don’t disagree with that too much. But it is only women that can have babies. So, a world view that doesn’t incorporate their specific issues is, by it’s nature, not inclusive either. Which is why I’ve been saying all along that folk decide on their primary identity and then try to stuff their secondary identities into it. Even when these secondary identities don’t fit. Catholics, for instance are very good at that, and I don’t mean that in a bad way. Actual use of contraception, etc.

I’m clit-sick of…

Like it.

You know Thomas, I have re-read your posts on this and other threads and the funny thing is that if you put me under Oath in a court of law, and asked me……“what does Thomas believe in?”

I WOULN’T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE.

You just waffle boy. Get off the fence and believe in something.

Charlotte Gore’s post on this issue the other day is also spot on:

Women do not need to justify wanting to retain this choice. Women do not have to have been raped to justify an abortion. Women do not have to be at risk of death to justify an abortion. Women do not have to face extreme financial hardship and fear for an intolerable quality of life for both herself and the baby to justify an abortion.

No justification is necessary. For women, liberty begins with being able to choose whether or not she wishes to sacrifice her own liberty in order to raise a child. A woman choosing to have a baby may well be one of the most amazing things in the world, but a woman raising a child she did not want is equally the most profoundly awful thing in the world. Liberty for women does not include having that choice: It is the most important prerequisite to a woman’s freedom there is, full stop. There is no liberty for women without it.

There are women who would rather die than allow a potential baby to become a real baby, and those that wish to take away the right to choose condemn these women to death, and condemn those who don’t die to slavery. It is to hold a power over women that men will never, ever have to face.

Once again this is turning in to a thread where we (a few of us) are trying to have a debate around this issue, making points that we think are worth engaging on in response to the oft-repeated opinions and claims of the feminists on here…and in response all we get are the oft-repeated claims and opinions of the feminists on here. I know I’ve had enough of restating and rewording my points in a vain effort of getting any progression, I’ll keep checking back in the (perhaps futile) hope of some of the progression happening in the future.

Sally and others, this is the point where you get to throw around more petty insults and false insinuations as to my (and others) actual beliefs, hilarious in a thread where one of the key debates is about supposedly not telling other people what to believe.

The crux of the issue, the deal-breaker, the kicker, is the “clutch of jellied pre-human cells”. For people such as Laurie who identify as feminists, those cells are part of the woman’s body and therefore fall under her personal sovereignty and she may do as she wishes with them. For people such as Palin who identify as feminists those cells have the right to life and the mother may not do as she wishes with them.

For Laurie, if you are anti-abortion or anti-choice you are anti a woman’s personal sovereignty, you are therefore anti-women and cannot be a feminist. But for Palin, if you are anti-abortion you are just anti-abortion, you are pro the new person, not anti the mother, not anti women, she wants to support the child and the mother (note that the one context when she supports abortion is when the circumstances would otherwise lead to the death of the mother). Both are logical positions to hold from the point of view of the person holding them. Of course, the other’s position looks entirely illogical because they are each starting with one wholly different premise: whether or not those cells have a right to life.

Richard @ 8 puts the point clearly and concisely.

Well, ok, whatever; members of Feminists for Life will continue to call themselves feminists and get away with it and presumably make Laurie & co. even more angry. But I think it’s interesting that what seems to come out more from this thread and the other is that those people cannot be feminists because I say so, a bit like a Unitarian saying a Catholic cannot be a Christian, rather than anything particularly constructive, and I don’t understand the purpose of the articles.

Agreed ukliberty, the sheer similarity between what I’ve seen on these two threads, and what I’ve had experience of when arguing with Christian fundamentalists, is astounding.

Strange to see this one giiven new life after the previous discussion was cut short. I can’t see much progress. I don’t understand why Laurie and Sunny feel that their assertions carry such force though, without any argument to back them up. I know that some would prefer ‘pro-life’ women not to be couted as feminists but they have an obligation to explain why it is, necessarily, anti-feminist to believe that the unborn have rights, an ethical question of enormous complexity.

On a slightly different tack, I am surprised that there has not been more satisfaction taken by feminists that they now seem to have so far won out in the debate that even out-and-out conservatives like Palin feel it necessary and/or desirable to describe themselves as feminist. This is an amazing advance when once the term ‘feminist’ was the kiss of death in rightwing/conservative politics. Personally, I think that, strategically at least, the feminist movement would do better to capitalize on that by embracing people such as Palin instead of falling into the old left wing vice of ex-communicating and witch hunting.

I sympathise with what Laurie and Sunny say.

Sarah Palin subscribes to a kind of feminism that revolves around “work hard women and you too can climb the corporate greasy pole yet still have 5 kids, and be a gun totin’ creationist who thinks the Arctic is a wasteland” Nothing about equality, oppression, solidarity. It is individualistic feminism or aka “I’m all right Jacqueline” . You cannot separate her political right-wing ideology from her brand of feminism, it is individualistic and demonstrated by her support for Feminists for Life.

Palin is not part of the sisterhood I subscribe to and neither is her subscription to Feminists for Life. Again, their feminism revolves around anti-choice though contradictorily, claiming to be feminists. How can you be a feminist when you are telling when how to control their own bodies? I recall at NUS conference in the late-1980s when a woman got up to speak in favour of the Alton Bill yet she described herself as a feminist. I believed it was a contradiction in terms then and still do.

Feminism is about liberation and equality. Palin subscribes to neither. I think many of the male commentators should read up on feminism (or listen to what feminists have to say) and maybe get a better grounding on the subject before they pontificate.

“Feminism is about liberation and equality. Palin subscribes to neither. I think many of the male commentators should read up on feminism (or listen to what feminists have to say) and maybe get a better grounding on the subject before they pontificate.”

Indeed, we men know nothing and aren’t listening at all, that’s precisely the problem, well done, gold star. Can someone change the record, perhaps by actually addressing the points these supposedly clueless male commentators have said rather than simply reiterating the arguments of the original article ad hominem?

“You cannot separate her political right-wing ideology from her brand of feminism, it is individualistic and demonstrated by her support for Feminists for Life. ”

Since when has ‘feminism’ entailed a collectivist or socialist politics? If that is your definition of ‘feminism’, why not drop the term altogether? What does it add?

But I disagree with you that you cannot disentangle Palin’s ‘feminism’ from, say, her advocacy of gun rights. Gun ownership is simply not a feminist issue. Does Palin advocate equal rights for women? She seems to. Does she oppose structural barriers to the advancement of women? She seems to. Does she believe that women should be entitled to act in all the spheres that men are allowed to act in, personal and professional? I think she doeas. Wether she thinks that welfare programmes should be better funded or not hardly matters in this context. She opposes abortion because (taking her at her word) she believes it is murder. That is something that can be debated but it is not obviously wrong and it is not, in itself, antifeminist to oppose murder. Just to reiterate, that does not mean I oppose abortion. In fact, I am strongly pro-abortion.

“Feminism is about liberation and equality. Palin subscribes to neither. I think many of the male commentators should read up on feminism (or listen to what feminists have to say) and maybe get a better grounding on the subject before they pontificate.”

I’ve been listening for 20 years and IMHO feminism is simply the intellectualisation of a row about the housework.

I’ll get me coat.

“peddlers of regressive porn and Sarah Palin to wave tokenistic feminist flags over the most anti-woman policies imaginable.”

Also I would welcome your opinions on what constitutes “progressive porn”

Harpymarx,

How can you be a feminist when you are telling when how to control their own bodies?

Again this misses the crux of the issue – the “clutch of jellied pre-human cells”. As I understand them, Palin & co. do support woman’s control of her own body, but they do not support control of (to the detriment of, anyway) the “clutch of jellied pre-human cells”. As I said in comment 3, you see the cells as part of the woman’s body and therefore under her personal sovereignty – Palin & co. see the cells deserving at least of the right to life (however, not at the expense of the woman’s right to life). No wonder you disagree: you have a different premise.

But you seem to acknowledge that hers is a “kind of” or “brand of” feminism, which seems much more reasonable than Laurie’s position – indeed wholly reasonable, absent any further information on other aspects of their brand, which as far as I can see Laurie hasn’t commented on – albeit one that you and many others, including me, wouldn’t subscribe to.

ukliberty: “No wonder you disagree: you have a different premise.”
Yeah, it is called pro-choice.

“But you seem to acknowledge that hers is a “kind of” or “brand of” feminism, which seems much more reasonable than Laurie’s position”

It’s called bourgeois feminism

“It’s called bourgeois feminism”

Blimey, this mania for categories. Name it and claim it, and all that. Still, at least we agree that it is not absurd to call Palin a feminist even if she disagrees with us about abortion.

You guys can argue and philosophise the whole day whether she is a feminist or not – I don’t agree with her on anything – Not the Jesus, not the hunting, not the 5 children in this age of overpopulation and not the forced arranged marriage she is organising for her daughter but the the proof is in the pudding – she could quite possibly be the 2nd in charge of the most powerful country in the world – and she didn’t have to sleep with anyone to do it. She has also not had to sacrifice the continuation of her DNA by not having time for children.

Isn’t she exactly what feminism is all about – equality for women in positions of power?

You guys are talking about it and she may be about to do it.

“but the the proof is in the pudding ”

Not exactly on topic, but I keep seeing this phrase on the internets but I think it should really be: ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.

“You know Thomas, I have re-read your posts on this and other threads and the funny thing is that if you put me under Oath in a court of law, and asked me……“what does Thomas believe in?”

I WOULN’T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE.”

a true compliment – Given that in internet debates it’s usually easy to tell everything that someone will say, based on the first thing they say about anything… I think thomas you can be proud to be an exception.

Happymarx,

ukliberty: “No wonder you disagree: you have a different premise.”
Yeah, it is called pro-choice.

No, the premise is whether or not the cells have a right to life.

Actually, the more I think about this subject the more it occurs to me that I think Sunny is correct when he says “Its not really about owning a label, but fundamentally about what defines a movement.” And that for me is the crux about Palin and her faux feminism. She may be vaguely in favour of equal pay but certainly not when it comes to women controlling their bodies.

I think I was wrong to define her as a bourgeois feminist as the political context is wrong. She has no brand of feminism. Palin has a vested interest in defending her own class interests.

“Palin has a vested interest in defending her own class interests.”

As do we all, of course, even Marxists (although they often think they are exempt from this motivation). But on your point about Palin’s failure to support (in your view) a woman’s right to control her own body, I don’t see any evidence for it. Palin believes that there is a clash of rights and gives more force to the rights of the unborn child than you or I do, but that is a very different thing. Nobody beleves that a woman should be entirely free to control her body in every circumstance. We all believe that that freedom needs to be curtailed or negotiated sometimes when it clashes with the basic rights of others (no woman has the absolute right to put her fist where another woman’s face is, for example)..