Modern feminism: Too narrow-minded?
[S]omehow, somewhere, the feminist movement became co-opted by an extraordinarily narrow view of woman, one as narrow as the previously prevailing view that a woman’s only place was at home barefoot in the kitchen. Now it would seem, the view is that a woman’s only place is at her desk, in a pantsuit, with a nanny at home watching her two children. She must be a card-carrying supporter of Planned Parenthood, or else she is complicit in the ever-illusive “war on women.”
That view presents a woman who is opposed to abortion, eschews contraception, opts out of a career to tend to her children, or has a large family (or all of the above), as anti-feminist, oppressed, and ignorant. It, ironically, makes her a second-class citizen, because of her choice….
Perhaps it’s time we revisit what exactly feminism entails. Rather than jump to label Michelle Duggar a disgrace to all that the women’s rights movement stands for, we can use her choice as a springboard for conversation about respect for women more broadly.
Because all women suffer when society’s view of woman is too narrow.
~ Ashley McGuire, The Washington Post, November 10
[Photo via timeoutnewyorkkids.com]

womens lib. hahahaaaaa what a joke. it put us back in bondage. now we are expected to work. they want us to be like men. if the feminazis had their way they would sterilize us all.
womens lib is desrtroying our lives.if you buy the lie that is. it almost destroyed mine. all i really ever wanted was a good husband and a family. sleeping around wont get you there. it only brings pain to the woman. death to their children disrespect from men that use them.
Two lines from the article jumped out at me:
“Shaming Michelle Duggar for not making the choices you personally would have liked,” is in fact, misogynistic.” Yep.
“In fact, the Duggars are not part of the Quiverfull movement and have chosen their lifestyle based on their own personal religious beliefs.” Interesting.
Modern feminism, as interpreted and purveyed by the Planned Parenthood Cosmo types, has destroyed the fabric of this society. Everyone knows that moms are the teachers, moral educators, and hearts of the family. She can’t do that well when she sees her work consistently demeaned by media and popular culture.
We do it well IN SPITE OF THE FACT that our work is consistently demeaned by media and popular culture.
Carry on, moms!! We are changing the world!!
PS Abortion will never “empower” women. Ever.
Carla, that’s what we (and especially you, because of your past experience and wisdom) need to show women how hurtful and DISempowering abortion is.
I love being a mom. It is the most important thing I will ever do with my mind, body and spirit.
Criticism of the Duggars is far from synonymous with feminism. I have a friend who is profoundly anti-feminist and extremely conservative. She has said of the Duggars, “They make me sick.” She’s appalled by children being raised according to a “buddy system” and believes the children are kind of “lost” within a family that size. She considers the Duggars irresponsible.
I think it extremely odd that people tend to praise me and act like I am some kind of hero for staying home most of the time with my kids, because my wife is the full-time worker in our home, but women get mocked for the same thing? Real double standard for the genders there. I thought the point of equality is that people can make their own decisions regarding their families? Is it only equality if EVERY woman takes on the breadwinning in their family?
Those evil Duggars!! Man, they make me so angry!! What with their good manners, playing musical instruments, modesty, loving the Lord, working together as a team….GRRRRRRRRR> I am SO ANGRY.
JackBorsch says:
November 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I think it extremely odd that people tend to praise me and act like I am some kind of hero for staying home most of the time with my kids, because my wife is the full-time worker in our home, but women get mocked for the same thing? Real double standard for the genders there. I thought the point of equality is that people can make their own decisions regarding their families? Is it only equality if EVERY woman takes on the breadwinning in their family?
(Denise) The Duggars aren’t being criticized just because the husband happens to be the breadwinner and the wife the homemaker. They are being criticized for their extreme reproduction.
However, extremity in just about everything is probably inevitable.
I wasn’t talking about the Duggars, Denise, just about the vilification of stay at home moms in general. I think it’s just as wrong to criticize the Duggars for their choice of how many children to have as it is when people on this blog and elsewhere criticize women who choose to remain childless for their whole lives.
As I point out on another thread, housewife — or househusband — is not synonymous with stay-at-home-mom or dad. I have a friend who is a househusband with a gay partner. They don’t have kids. I was a housewife through many years of marriage but we had no children.
It’s amazing to watch the Duggars make pro-aborts/ femnazi’s heads explode. Just mentioning the name “Duggar” and they start to twitch nervously. This family has a core set of convictions and what I admire about them is their fearlessness to follow it.
I love the Duggars faith, courage, inspiration, intelligence and dedication. They are only nurturing those children for God. They belong to Him. My last of 7 children died at age 26. I wish I had born 10 more.
JackBorsch says:
November 15, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I wasn’t talking about the Duggars, Denise, just about the vilification of stay at home moms in general. I think it’s just as wrong to criticize the Duggars for their choice of how many children to have as it is when people on this blog and elsewhere criticize women who choose to remain childless for their whole lives.
(Denise) Homemaking has to be compared to regular jobs that most people, both men and women, work rather than highly creative glamour jobs. There is considerable variation in homemaking, much more so than factory work or telephone soliciting. One of my brothers is a cook in an expensive steak restaurant. He has said, “For the past years I’ve been mashing up lamb testicles. I’d just as soon stay home and change a few poopee diapers!” His work has variation but he does not like it all that much. Another friend makes about 300 phone calls a day as a telemarketer and is lucky if he gets one “lead.” Either of these men might be quite happy to be full-time homemakers if they had the opportunity.
My idea of the underlying concept of feminism is that it’s intent is to escape the claws of patriarchy and misogyny. This required some changes to laws and regulations and a very large effort to create equal pay, something which still hasn’t eventuated. Was it Ronnie Rayguns who blocked the Equal Rights Amendment?
Part of escaping the claws of patriarchy and misogyny entailed freeing women from the situation where they were held captive by not being empowered to control their own fertility. Through a lot of work and struggle this has been largely overcome. The feminist push has had to be at times ‘extreme’ or ‘over the top’ just to try to get even close to middle ground.
I think that the fact that woman have not been able to achieve total parity across the board leads to the situation where in many cases, the ability of women to stay home while men work is still far easier to achieve and receives much more positive acclamation than for men to stay home while women work.
It is still the case that when push comes to shove there is a paradigm that men must work while women can choose to be homemakers.
When we see the day when the ratio of men to women choosing to be the one that stays in the home reaches 50/50, then we may be close to equality.
The Duggars have made their choice. I don’t agree with all aspects of it but I really don’t see that they are causing any more harm in any way than occurs in the majority of family situations. No family is perfect.
I just hope none of them fall victim to the whole ‘sleb’ debacle.
Reality: I’m gonna say it: MOMS ARE BETTER HOMEMAKERS.
Of course there will be exceptions to the rule. But those of us who have children know that the maternal instinct to nurture and protect is different (not I don’t say less/more/unequal: just different) than a father’s. FATHERS do differnt things than mothers. That’s so both parents don’t have to be strong at the same things.
Men are never going to stay home at an equal rate as moms. They’re not built that way. Dude! You make me laugh with all your talk of misogyny and patriarchy. This isn’t a women’s studies class at college, this is real life! And as if that were even desireable! Hah! Every time my kids had a bad dream in the middle of the night, who do you think which side of the bed they come to? Without fail, they want me! They want thier mom! Why? BECAUSE I MOTHER THEM.
Men and women are differnt. You can legislate the equality, you can make sure women can kill all thier unborns on their lunch hour: no matter. Moms rule the home. That’s just the way it is.
Courtnay, that isn’t the way it is at my house, or many other homes. A lot of families can benefit from a homemaking dad rather than a mother. My wife would literally go insane if she had to stay home. A lot of women have no desire to stay home with their children, and feel a lot of guilt about it because of the kind of things you are saying. I think insisting that women are always better than men at taking care of children is damaging to the many women that I have talked to that do not get the enjoyment and fulfillment that they are “supposed” to get.
PS, my kids have always run to me instead of my wife when in need of comfort. I have a few guy friends were it is the same.
Like I said < jack, there will always be exceptions. I have a wide circle of friends having lived in the same community for 16 years, and I don’t know anyone like you.
Did you know that they have done studies, and found that families with a stay-at-home or part-time working dads, as long as it isn’t forced by financial circumstances, have children with healthier bonds with both parents, and better emotional child development on par with homemaking moms?
Reality: “Part of escaping the claws of patriarchy and misogyny entailed freeing women from the situation where they were held captive by not being empowered to control their own fertility.”
I have never understood this argument. Women can control their fertility, and have been able to, without abortion. This is akin to saying women need to be able to kill their born children as well in order to truly have fertility freedom. Stupid.
I agree with Jack, Courtnay. And I think the only reason its ‘an exception to the rule’ is simply that it hasn’t happened to any great extent.
If the stay at home role had been equal for quite some time then I think that ‘moms are better homemakers’ wouldn’t be the case. Different yes, but not ‘better’.
I do at least 60% of the cooking and I keep the kitchen and bathrooms clean. And my son sought comfort from me just as much as from his mother. It’s about the roles we allow to develop.
Men can do it.
“I have never understood this argument.” – now why does that not surprise me? ;-)
“Women can control their fertility, and have been able to, without abortion.” – apart from when contraception was not available or not allowed (as some would still have it) and had to ‘submit’ to their husbands.
“This is akin to saying women need to be able to kill their born children as well in order to truly have fertility freedom.” – not at all, with contraception and abortion being available then it would be rare circumstances in which women would feel the need to kill their born children, and it probably wouldn’t have anything to do with their ‘fertility status’.
Reality: “now why does that not surprise me?”
Calm down there. You are the one who still cannot parse a simple question.
Reality: “apart from when contraception was not available or not allowed (as some would still have it) and had to ‘submit’ to their husbands.”
Right, that’s why I said I didn’t understand it. Women have ready access to contraception and are not forced to have sex except in extreme circumstances. So why do they “need” abortion for fertility freedom? (By the way, I am all for contraception as long as it does not cause abortion. You have me confused with your mistaken image of a pro-lifer.)
Reality: “not at all, with contraception and abortion being available then it would be rare circumstances in which women would feel the need to kill their born children, and it probably wouldn’t have anything to do with their ‘fertility status’.”
You could use that same argument. With contraception, knowledge of female cycles, and sexual autonomy abortion doesn’t have anything to do with fertility status.
Sorry, have to side with Courtnay on this one. You may be the exception to the rule Jack, but you are not the norm.
“You are the one who still cannot parse a simple question” – only when you expect a singular answer to a two part question.
“So why do they “need” abortion for fertility freedom?” – because contraception has not yet been perfected.
“You have me confused with your mistaken image of a pro-lifer” – no, I said ‘some’, not you.
Well then you aren’t all for contraception then are you.
Reality: “only when you expect a singular answer to a two part question.”
I didn’t ask a two part question, fool. I asked a question about two things. The answer should be singular. (Ex. “Are these two things both red?” “No.”)
Reality: “because contraception has not yet been perfected.”
First of all, it has been perfected. If you are not forced to have sex, you are in control of your fertility through natural planning. Couple that with 99.99% successful contraceptives, and you have an error margin that is statistically insignificant. You know what? If we save abortions for only those women who are put in immediate danger and those women who become pregnant after using all possible contraceptive methods, I am perfectly fine with it. Not morally, of course, but I’d take that .000000000001% abortion rate from a pragmatic POV.
Reality: “no, I said ‘some’, not you.”
No, you said “overwhelming majority,” but point taken.
Reality: “Well then you aren’t all for contraception then are you”
I am as long as it does not cause abortion.
I think you are right SydneyM but I think this is only so because traditional arrangements precluded the opportunity to make it more than an exception.
“I didn’t ask a two part question, fool. I asked a question about two things. The answer should be singular. (Ex. “Are these two things both red?” “No.”)” – that’s not the construct of the question you asked at all.
“If you are not forced to have sex, you are in control of your fertility through natural planning” – that’s not natural planning, that’s avoidance. People choose to have sex. Humans have attained a level of emotional and physiological states that the desire to procreate is well behind the desire to participate in sexual activities. The times when women are highly likely to conceive are far less than the times that we desire sex (heck, even a fervent anti-choicer here claimed that she and her husband simply ‘couldn’t resist each other’ on one occasion). Why do you think both men and women have sexual desire even when the woman isn’t fertile? Even when highly fertile, a woman’s body fights the potential for conception during sex to a surprising degree.
Unfortunately contraceptives aren’t 99.99% successful yet.
Reality: “that’s not the construct of the question you asked at all.”
It is a lot closer than you think it is. The question is about two beliefs; I just happen to list them out as a and b to help your confused mind out. (You must have suffered through College.)
Reality: “that’s not natural planning, that’s avoidance.”
No, it is planning that uses avoidance. The question is not about whether we have a desire for sex beyond procreation. The question is about whether women are in control of their fertility. They are. They can choose to not have sex during their fertile time, use contraceptives, etc. So, they can control their fertility. There is no reason to support further control of fertility at the expense of killing. With a few serious exceptions, no one is forcing women to get pregnant. Abortion is not necessary.
“The question is about two beliefs” – that’d be two then.
I hated high school, it was mind-numbingly boring but I’ve loved every educational facility I’ve been a part of since. Probably because I could operate under my own auspices and structures.
“No, it is planning that uses avoidance.” – what, like ‘no I won’t have a drink – oh, ok, just one.’
“They can choose to not have sex during their fertile time, use contraceptives, terminate an unplanned pregnancy etc. So, they can control their fertility” – there, fixed it for you.
“There is no reason to support further control of fertility at the expense of killing.” – that’s what you say. Then there are those who say they shouldn’t use contraceptives. Then there are those who say they shouldn’t have sex unless they are married and intend to get pregnant. Where will it all end?
Reality: “that’d be two then.”
Yep, still required one answer. Really the question was simply “why do you draw the line in the sand here, between these two things?”
Is that so damned hard to understand?
Reality: “I hated high school, it was mind-numbingly boring but I’ve loved every educational facility I’ve been a part of since. Probably because I could operate under my own auspices and structures.”
Right. I am sure you did some challenging things in College.
Reality: “They can choose to not have sex during their fertile time, use contraceptives, terminate an unplanned pregnancy, kill their child after birth, etc. So, they can control their fertility”
Fixed it for you too I suppose.
Reality: “that’s what you say. Then there are those who say they shouldn’t use contraceptives. Then there are those who say they shouldn’t have sex unless they are married and intend to get pregnant. Where will it all end?”
No woman should be forced to do anything, other than fulfill certain social obligations. However, a woman’s (and man’s) choices become limited when those choices hurt other humans unjustly. Want to use a condom? Go for it. Want to have sex? Sure, fine by me. Want to shoot up whatever drug? Sure, why not. Want to kill your own progeny? No, stop right there.
See? Simple. Women can control their fertility, but not kill their children. What’s hard about that?
So why does no one criticize JS Bach for his 20 kids?
In fact, no one even comments on it, which is as it should be.
“why do you draw the line in the sand here, between these two things?” – poor description.
“Right. I am sure you did some challenging things in College.” – I’ve completed a much wider range of studies than college, some challenging, some not so much.
“Fixed it for you too I suppose.” – you suppose wrong. Different realm.
“No woman should be forced to do anything, other than fulfill certain social obligations.” – whose? which ones? when? why? The ones that say she should remain a virgin until marriage and only have sex if it is completely unprotected and open to the possibility of conception?
Women can control their fertility, including terminating an unwanted fetus. What’s hard about that?
It was a different time, a different world hippie. No real contraception, societal expectations that people would have larger families than nowadays – all that stuff.
reality have you visited any abortion sites yet? i didnt think so. they are out there. go loooooooook! it might change your mind. some of the girls at work were curious so i pulled up a site with the abortionist holding a beheaded baby. the reaction? shock tears anger. omg how could anyone do that? its horrible. ~see just look at pictures. try watching ‘the choice blues”……abortion procedures shown. please watch.
Jack, one other thing I’d like to point out:
(and please know that I would have LOVED to spend all evening on the computer battling Reality, but I had to get 2 children ready for away basketball games, then help another one with his math homework and then volunteer at our school’s concession stand during another basketball game where my husband is the Varsity boy’s coach, effectively making me a widow till late February)
I was not a SAHM because it was particularly fulfilling. Let me state that straight out of the gate. I am a Phi Beta Kappa grad who was getting ready to write her dissertation on the religious conversions of TS Eliot and Walker Percy, and I am a trained librarian to boot. It was NEVER about where I felt most comfotable or where I found my “truest self” or whatever. I became a SAHM because that is the best way to raise a child. Chrildren want to be raised by their parents, and I give you props for doing it yourself. There were days I was at home with 2 in diapers and I went into the bathroom and screamed silently. There were days when I thought if I have to change one more diaper I am going to get in the car, start driving, and then call my husband to get his kids. But again, whenI became a mom I realized it is no longer about me. It is about them and creating a home for them. You know what I am talking about, but I take issue with the idea that you have to enjoy being a full time parent. Straight up, there were whole months I did not enjoy it. But I did it anyway because that’s what I had to do.
Fast forward 13 years. I have gone back to work now that my kids are older. That dissertation never got written, and sometimes I take the PBK key out of my jewelry box and remember my former life. And then I look at my kids and never doubt my struggles and love and commitment to my sweet family. Oh, and thank the good Lord for the Prozac.
Apparently the Duggars were childless for five years before their first child was born, which they planned. I wonder if the people who criticize them know that?
please see the penn state post in regards to my last screwed-up post on this thread
Yeah, Courtnay, and I am very happy that you were able to do what was best for your family. Honestly, it’s great and I am glad for your children that they had their mother to take care of them full time. No one said that homemaking was easy, it actually sucks, like hardcore half the time. My kids are 3 and almost 1 and I barely feel like I can handle them half the time. But the fact remains, my wife is worse at handling it. My kids are better taken care of with me as the homemaker than her. And I would be willing to bet, based on my convos with stay at home moms around here, that some women would like the roles to be switched, and it would probably be better for the kids.
Honestly, I think shaming or encouraging someone to stay home and be “stuck with the kids” (I hate that term, but it fits for someone who really doesn’t want to parent that way) when they are not equipped for it is dangerous. My mother had six children, she was not allowed to work, so when I (the youngest) came along she was completely overwhelmed and very abusive towards me. Don’t you think that it would have been better if my mother had more choices with what to do with her life, rather than be forced into a role she despised and having children she hated? I realize that is an extreme example, but don’t you think that either having the father home, or a trusted babysitter, is preferable to being stuck with a resentful and unhappy mother?
jACK, i’M SORRY YOU WERE ABUSED. i WASN’T mothered particularly well myself. I also think that families ultimately know what works best for them, like yours. I just don’t know any stay at home dads, and I laugh when I think about my husband being home with the kids full time. He’d do it, though, if he had to. I think shaming someone and encouraging someone to stay at home are different. I encourage all families with small children to have a full time parent in the home. I do think its better than putting them in daycare. I don’t think the choices are equal. But in your mom’s case, there obviously were some major issues going on that cost you dearly. Sorry for that. I know right now you are in the trenches with a 3 yr old and a baby–hang in there. My youngest is 8, but if I could go back and do it again, I would tell myself:Try to enjoy this time. It will never be like this again, and it goes by so quickly.
It was a different time, a different world hippie. No real contraception, societal expectations that people would have larger families than nowadays – all that stuff.
Huh?
Like now that we have contraception, we have to use it?
Like, it isn’t really a choice?
If people making their own decisions is okay, then why criticize them for doing something that is safe legal and rare, like having 20 kids?
If abortion were as rare as people having 20 kids, probably little attention would be given it, because folks would likely assume there were some really good reason, etc. However, when abortion is nearly as common as births, like for African Americans, naturally folks wonder why half the kids never see the light of day.
Courtnay and Sydney, Jack is probably the “exception” because we’ve all been socialized by a culture that says moms are the homemakers – not because it has to be so. If we had started as a matriarchal society who knows what you guys would be saying about this today.
Some of the best and closest knit families I’ve seen are families where Mom and Dad take on parenting as a 50/50 split 100%. When a child is crying sometimes he runs to Mom, and sometimes he runs to Dad. It sounds to me like you guys just don’t have very supportive partners.
“Like now that we have contraception, we have to use it?” – of course not hippie. People wanted contraception so that they didn’t have more children every time thay had sex. Not everyone wanted umpteen children but until they managed to develop contraception they didn’t have a whole lot of choice.
Jack, I think that being a SAHF is great, and not really unusual – I know several, and I know far more families who have pretty equal childcare division of responsibilities, since my industry has a night-hour focus (so, for example, dad watches the kids during the day and then goes to work, mom takes over in the evening). Certainly not abnormal. People who focus on “the exception” anecdotally don’t take into account all the coercive factors that have built a structure in which it has been economically and socially advantageous for men to work and women stay home, from the industrial revolution onwards. Men staying home may be an exception in our current social structure but I don’t think for one second that that means it’s an exception to the laws of nature, or to human nature, or whatever. As with so many things, differences vary more by individual than by gender – by that I mean, you will find more variation among women as a gender, or among men as a gender, than between men and women as genders compared to each other. What matters is doing what works for you and your family. :)
Alexandra, I agree completely with what you said. You put that perfectly. Thank you!
“Like now that we have contraception, we have to use it?” – of course not hippie. People wanted contraception so that they didn’t have more children every time thay had sex. Not everyone wanted umpteen children but until they managed to develop contraception they didn’t have a whole lot of choice.
Duh, and total non sequitur.
The point is now we have contraception, but not everyone chooses to use it. Others can’t seem to figure out how to use it, and of course, it just plain fails x% of the time.
However, the real vilification is not for those who chose not to use it and then decide to kill that baby. No, it is for the rare person like Michelle, who choses not to use it and actually wants the kids. The fact that over a 1.5 million babies are killed is not as appalling to some as that 15 Duggar kids are sucking good air.
Unbe freaking lievable.
What have those kids ever done that makes so many say they wish they had never even been born?
“The point is now we have contraception, but not everyone chooses to use it” – correct, I didn’t say they had to now did I.
“However, the real vilification is not for those who chose not to use it and then decide to kill that baby.” – no? Look around you.
“What have those kids ever done that makes so many say they wish they had never even been born” – I’m not sure, it’s not my wish. I think some base their opposition on their desire to not overpopulate the planet.
For Jack: I believe you are correct that studies show the children of stay-at-home-dads actually fare BETTER than those of stay-at-home-moms. However, there are reasons why most people who stay home will continue to be female. There is more to being a homemaker. My mother is not unusual in believing “a man just doesn’t see dirt the way a woman does.” This generally accepted ability to see dirt may mean that the SAHMs have cleaner homes than the SAHDs. Housecleaning is part of homemaking. Most people think females are more likely to wage war on dust and grime.
Alexandra, I never felt coerced into staying at home, nor did my husband feel coerced to provide for our family as the sole breadwinner. What we felt was responsibility. Believe me, I AM the power player in my home. And I still stand by my origianl assertion that women are the homemakers of the family. That’s how nature is designed.
And Elizabeth, I can only hope you have as good a man as I do. He is absolutely my parter and is devoted to me and our family. As undeserving as I was, God blessed me to the moon and back with my sweet Rob. 16 years this December!
Hey Courtnay –
I hope you understand that socially and economically coercive factors, and individual coercion, are two different things. One is pushing people to do something they don’t want to do, and another involves the structure of a system affecting what people want to, and think of as best to, do. Think of the difference between socially and economically coercive factors influencing abortion, versus individual coercion. One girl’s parents say, “If you don’t abort, we’re kicking you out.” Another girl has everyone say, “It’s your CHOICE, do what you want. But we have no childcare so you will need to drop out of college. And you will need to move back in with your mother. And by the way don’t count on your mother to help with the baby, because she raised you guys and she’s done with that now. And you can get insurance while you’re pregnant but after that you will lose it since you won’t be working full-time for a while.” And that girl says, “I CHOOSE to abort.” She is choosing freely, but not freely of the constructs of her society. That’s a very different example but I do hope you realize that when I say that our society is structured to be economically and socially coercive in favor of certain choices, I am not saying any individual is coerced. There is a long history of the effect of industrialization on the family, starting with which jobs industrialized first – it’s very interesting to look into. But I think it is a fallacy to assume that “the way things usually are” is “the way they are naturally intended to be.”
Not all social coercion is bad! We can and should build a society that makes good choices into the default choices. Women staying at home is not bad! My mother stayed home, as I said, and we were all better off for it. She was not coerced into doing so but she was part of the social structure that made it “natural” for her to do so. If I have children I hope to have the freedom to decide what works best for me, as I don’t think all women are natural homemakers and I don’t think all women do best staying home. I love the idea of staying home and think I would probably be good at it, but I can’t promise myself that that is how I will really function best, when it comes down to it. And I think children (obviously having their basic needs met and being loved and cared for, etc) are best off when their parents are mentally and emotionally comfortable.
I think “nature is designed” so that parents naturally have the capacity to love and nurture and protect their children. How they divide all that that entails between them is more individual and I see nothing to gain by saying that men who are the caregivers are an exception to nature. Men even experience hormone fluctuations in testosterone relative to how much time they spend with their children, which suggests that the more time they spend in nurturing roles, the more hormonally primed they are to nurture. Perhaps our idea that it isn’t “natural” for men to be caregivers is just because we have so few men as caregivers.
“I think some base their opposition on their desire to not overpopulate the planet.”
1.5 million babies are killed by abortion each year, but they are worried about Michelle having 15 kids? Drop in the proverbial bucket.
I find this statement odd. Mainly because 3rd wave feminism which would be modern feminism by everything I have read is more broad and more accepting of different types of feminism then 2nd wave feminism which is the feminism of most people over 40 or 50. This switch has focused on including women that don’t fit the model of middle class straight white women of the 1970s and expand to allowing women to claim the feminist label for multiple reasons and causes that look at the equality of women and because of this the rallying cry for feminists now seems to focus most of their efforts on gender violence then reproductive rights. I think you see this very obviously in the push in the last couple years as the mainstay big feminist movements to be Take Back the Night, Vagina Monologues, and Slut Walks.
I also think that feminist can be prolife. If they were they would focus a lot on the way that support single mothers so that we are in a country that supports things such as safe and affordable healthcare and daycare, better maternity/paternity leave, better ability for single parents to go to college, ideas of family wages for either sex, push for more lactation locations and changing tables and more access to sex education and contraceptives. Also specifically in the pro life movement stopping laws that make the women look incompetent and like children that turn off many people to their causes. So if a women chooses an abortion if you are making it illegal she should go to jail, you should trust a woman that she can make a choice with out seeing an ultrasound, and that a baby and a woman’s health should be considered equal so that a choice to kill one or the other for the other shouldn’t be illegal.
abortion is murder. it should be illegal.
The only TRUE feminists are prolife. And as prolifers, abortion must be illegal because it is murder.