I'll start off with the latest news about Gov. Sarah Palin, whose 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant.
The media of course are agog about what this means. And liberal bloggers are also weighing-in (and playing Moral Arbiter about Palin's failure as a mother and the attendant failure of her personal politics).
And while I'm not 100 percent in Barack Obama's camp at the moment, I agree with his assessment: this story should have no place in our politics; it's a personal, family issue; and I take it a big step further, as Melissa McEwan at Shakesville has:
Already there is enough political hay to feed a stampede of unity ponies being made about the fact that an anti-choice (even in cases of rape) and pro-abstinence-only sex ed
candidate has an unmarried, pregnant, teenage daughter. Bristol's pregnancy is fair game, so goes the argument, because it shows the failure of conservative policies.
But does it? We have no idea what the circumstances of the conception were. Maybe Bristol and her partner knew how to use contraception, had secured contraception, were using contraception – and it failed. Wouldn't be the first time. Such a scenario would hardly make Bristol's pregnancy an indictment of Sarah Palin's politics; it would merely suggest that Bristol doesn't share her mother's politics. Wouldn't be the first time for that, either. Just ask Ron Regan Junior. There's the possibility that Bristol wanted to get pregnant and planned this pregnancy – which is a choice lots of young women make, including Barack Obama's 18-year-old mother, as he reminded us today. The term "pro-choice" is robbed of all meaning if it means only defending the choices with which we agree.
Or can't conveniently be used as a political football against a candidate we don't like.
When we (Democrats, Independents and others who call ourselves feminists and support choice) start judging Palin's fitness as a mother (being selfish by putting her daughter into the national spotlight, running for VP as a new mother and as the mother of several young children) -- as some prominent liberal bloggers are doing -- it diminishes us and calls into question just how little we value the choice we say we support.
So, first question: What say you on this?
Second question: What does it mean to be a feminist? No. This is not a trick question.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
designanator
Dr. Susanne Freeborn
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
pretend_farmer
lpsrocks
Salon.com
Comments
Feminism ... to me, it means to believe in equal opportunities for all women--and it means raising your voice against oppression, of any kind, against any woman and fighting to end that oppression with everything you've got. I'm sure there's more but it's late, and I have to get some sleep. That's a start on what I think feminism is, anyway.
Yes, yes, can you imagine if it were Joe Biden with the 17 year old pregnant daughter? (Hint: it'd be a little more prominent at the Drudge Report.) That still doesn't make it right.
And it's not going to be effective. Voters aren't going to change their mind on this, even if they think her daughter's situation reflects negatively on Palin.
Now, what does it mean to be a feminist? I don't know. My stab at it is that a feminist is one who recognizes that gender stratification is largely a social construct that is harmful to both women and men. Feminists must respond to injustices experienced by not only women, but all classes of people.
I would think a feminist would come to the conclusion that it is unjust to punish a 17 year old pregnant girl because of who her mother is.
I think feminism means a woman can do whatever she wants. Period.
I don't attach any other burdens to it. For example, I respectfully disagree that feminism is defined by fighting oppression for all people or even for other women. I think those are great things, but feminism means individual women making individual choices. Fight or don't fight, stay home or go to work, have babies or don't. There are many apolitical women out there, living their lives the way they want, minding their own business, making it work for themselves. That they are not fighting against female mutilation might not make them the very best feminists, but it doesn't preclude them from feminism, in my opinion.
If you ask who is a feminist, rather than what is feminism--that is a harder question, don't you think? Because then you need to decide if women who do what they want are feminists or if women who do what they want AND believe that women should do whatever they want are feminists. Follow? Hillary Clinton fits into both categories, but Sarah Palin does not. I don't know the answer to that one.
But it doesn't mean automatically agreeing with, and accepting all women's choices, especially when they involve women's children. Sarah Palin is a despicable mother, as I just said in my little blog, and saying so does not make me an non-feminist.
Women, just like men, need to be held responsible for their choices, especially when it means bringing a child into this world. That child didn't choose, and women who mother are responsible for the protection of that child's life on all levels (sorry, slightly off this topic but a real hot button for me)
You and this "judging" issue" - I don't get it. You purport to never develop a negative opinion of a person based on the facts in evidence?
What are you doing - waiting until all the facts are in to develop an opinion? What facts are you waiting for?
You seem to have judged me pretty quickly, others too from what I've seen. Do you really have anything to add to the discourse or is your thing to just run around and judge those who make judgements?
Check out my blog if you really want something to rant at me about.
But, if we judge outright without getting new information, and if we don't adjust our views based on something we might not have known before, doesn't that make us a lot like those in the Bush administration -- the very people (and behaviors) we are so angry about?
It is rather disingenious to claim you do not judge ME, but my opinions.
The fact that this poor's girl's story has reached epic proportions is the fault of ONE, and ONLY ONE person, her despicable mother.
Your view of feminism is a lot like my maternal grandmother's! I remember growing up and listening to her and watching what she did (anything she chose to do without the barriers or chains) and it had a huge impact on me, to the point that she was/is the model for how I live my life. Your view of feminism is very and unvarnished. Thanks for your thoughts!
YOU SAID: That to me is the big lesson from the election season. Years of pent up feelings, result in lashing out and hypocrisy.
So, the mantra seems to be hypocrisy for hypocrisy.
Very powerful. I've often thought that so much of the hatred and vitriol we are witnessing now is one result of eight years where we've had our rights taken away and taken for granted and our voices ignored. In this I am reminded of kids who grow up in violent and abusive homes. They grow up and they may have gotten through this in whatever ways they could, but then they reenact the abuse and violence inflicted on them onto others - in the same types of abuse, or in other forms of abuse, often without even realizing what they are doing!
I'm curious about why you think Sarah Palin is despicable simply because she accepted this honor.
And I have a slightly related question for you:
Is it also despicable for people like Barack Obama, or Joe Biden - both of whom have chose to put themselves in the glare of spotlights and which also meant that their children (and spouse, in Barack's case) were thrust into the spotlight with them?
And is it being a feminist to criticize only women and not men for their parental choices?
I had layed out my case for the despicable mother comment before I found your blog, and have since tried to clarify it on my blog page, which you can find by clicking on my name. I don't want to repeat it or misdirect your original question here.
A 21 year old woman with two children ages 5 and 3, and no HS diploma, marries a G-4 army guy. She uses WIC to feed her 2 children properly. She and the 21 yr old G-4 that cannot support her two kids CHOOSE to have a third child they cannot support because they WANT to try for a boy.
You want more? I have many such stories.
No way, I do NOT have to support every woman's choice when it comes to children.
It is a true story and THAT is a choice I do not support under any circumstances.
I’m happy for the Palin family, and, more broadly, I applaud the example that Sarah and Todd Palin have set for the rest of us: extra-marital sex and a baby out of wedlock are not a sign of the destruction of the nuclear family in America.
Many politicians are happy to set up their kids as good examples for the rest of us. Palin has brought up her son in the Army when the topic of Iraq has come up, though she hasn't emphasized it. Is it playing political football if we praise what's praiseworthy and ignore what's not?
Kellylark, do you seriously want to tell people how many children they are permitted to have? You're writing strikes of intense snobbery. I certainly hope you're not the type to readily throw the term "white-trash" around.
And it's that kind of condescension which allows Republicans to sweep up working class voters who would otherwise vote Democrat where it not for their sense of cultural identification.
Feminism should mean you express compassion for the plight of women who find themselves in circumstances predicated on a certain amount of sexism -- as in, you do the all the housework, Honey, because that's what my mom did. Particularly women who have to struggle financially to raise their children.
This is a streak you see with a lot of liberal Americans. They are often still very American, with a huge judgmental/Darwinian streak that places way too much responsibility on the individual and, by extension, exempting the social and political order from any.
You know, any one individual can screw up their life, yes. But when you have a society such as the US with such massive social failure, like 50 million people without health care, many of those being single mothers, you can't just say, well, those are 50 million idiots too stupid to find a good job. If you do think like that, then maybe you can find a happy home in your local Republican Party.
As for the issue of feminism and pro-choice. It's sad that a moral issue like abortion is politicized in America. It really should be a private matter.
When I asked my wife what would we do if she were pregnant with a disabled child, well, we were hard pressed for an answer. We really wouldn't wish such as decision on anyone.
When I asked my psycho-Darwinian, tough as nails Italian mother, she said, just get rid of it. You don't want that burden the rest of your life. Life is hard enough.
So I'll leave the feminism to my mother.
I define feminism as the recognition of every person's autonomy. Every person: male, female, transgender, white, black, adults, and yes, children. You respect mine, I respect yours, all those other folks out there respect ours.
Respecting another person's autonomy does not mean we cannot be critical but it does mean that our opinion does not supersede the opinion of our criticism's object, at least in terms of that person's decisions and actions.
Nor does it mean that we must lose our humor. If it is true that no man (person) is free while some are imprisoned, we will need our good humor for the work ahead.
Hearts to Red and Lainey and Stella and everyone else.
And Red: I like what you say about fighting sexism against men as well, although I may not have included it in the definition of feminism itself. Nevertheless, I have boys, and I am sensitive to the occasional double standard that I see (men as fools on TV sitcoms, girls' t-shirts that taunt or mock boys, etc.), and while it doesn't rise to the level of practical disadvantage that women face, it's disheartening nonetheless and always brings me back to the ideal of humanism. Let's not tear anyone down! is my mantra. Let's not solve one problem by creating another with a different set of victims. It's not a zero-sum game, after all.
Alec:
I don't quite follow your points. Are you equating social Darwinism with people who choose to have abortions? Are you saying that feminism isn't a topic that merits heavy-weight discussion? Please don't get me wrong: I'm asking for clarification here.
Stella:
I wonder if when people are forced into bleakness (like that we have witnessed/experienced under Bush) we don't become social Darwinists in some sense -- the weakest (or perceived weakest) become easy targets (the rampant sexism/misogyny against Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin; the racist slurs/accusations; the generational splits (old people become "too" old to be in charge or make change). Don't know, it's just a question I'm pondering based on your earlier comments and my own thoughts on the nasty turns our politics has taken this year.
To others who have commented that feminism means standing up against sexist treatment, programs, behaviors for both men and women: I agree. However, I have a caveat: women are by far the greatest recipients of sexual harassment and sexist treatment. Rarely are sexist comments directed at men (their behavior/dress/actions), primarily because the established order of things has been predominantly paternalistic, thus advantaging men/males.
Men who do not fit this established order, however, are also called out: gay men, men who don't do sports, stay-at-home fathers, "attractive men" (think John Edwards and the haircut comments). So, it is still the rare male who experiences sexist insults and/or sexual harassment. I guess, though, it could also be argued that the paternalistic order confines men, as well...
Thanks for your thought-provoking addition! In my most optimistic and idealistic moments I agree with your sentiments 100%. It's the times I see who gets hit the most with sexism and sexual harassment that I can become a little more narrow-minded! It's good to be reminded that feminism isn't only about women...
Red Stocking:
Great comments! I also read your blog post on the Palin VP-can-she-be-a-good-mother and took on the "bad mother" comments. Keep up your thoughtful posts and thoughts. Thanks for weighing-in here.
A feminist is a person who actively supports, in word and deed, the full autonomy, equality and representation of women in society and all its institutions, including family and government.
A feminist recognizes that not all decisions made by a woman are a product of individual choice - that in a historically patriarchal and misogynistic society, there are great, pervasive, invisible forces at work on individual decisions, and as a result, it is to be expected that not all women are making choices from a position of full autonomy and equality. A feminist does not attack the woman for this, but attacks the systems that make this possible. A feminist is an agent of change - change of thoughts, words, deeds, policy, attitudes toward and about women.
Thanks for sharing this great post!