“Let me make one thing absolutely and abundantly and categorically clear. There is no such thing as a ‘pro-life’ feminist. You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose. Let me repeat that for the brainwashed and hard of hearing:
You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
***
“Mrs Palin is all of these things. A case for post-natal abortion if ever there was one.”
It is amazing how the left manage to sound both patronising AND threatening at the same time. As I said yesterday, whats the use of being pro-choice, if you won’t give women the individual right to enforce it: http://www.a-human-right.com/s_alive.jpg
“You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
Unless it comes to pornography, prostitution or strip clubs. ;)
Lee -
Unless it comes to pornography, prostitution or strip clubs. ;)
Do you think so? I don’t.
Julie Bindel does. Is she NOT a feminist?
Of course, I would contend that her views do not advance the interests of women (as a group or as individuals) so perhaps she shouldn’t be considered a feminist. But she definitely is considered to be one by most and I find amongst many vocal feminists (perhaps a majority) a desire to prevent other women from choosing rather a lot of things that they don’t approve of. In essence, they are conservatives. They just happen to believe in the right to abortion amongst their medley of beliefs. It is not a principled “pro-choice for women in general” stand.
Nick -
Well, personally I believe that Julie Bindel is a fascist who normally gives feminists a bad name.
And let’s not muddy the issue here. I’m not talking about a woman’s right to choose in general, but a woman’s right to choose whether and when and how to terminate pregnancy. As you know full well.
Okay. I’ve had a smoke and a think. Let’s do this.
I believe in a woman’s right to choose - in reproductive terms, and also in general.
I believe in a woman’s right to choose to work in the sex industry. I believe that women should not be criminalised if they choose to take off their clothes, have sex and/or be filmed and photographed doing these things, for money. I have taken off my clothes for money myself in the past.
I also believe that, whilst not morally wrong, it’s a bad idea for them to do so. I believe that the reasons that women choose to enter these professions should be interrogated and examined and questioned.
For example. I have a close friend who’s a struggling artist who makes money on the side in the sex industry. I don’t, fundamentally, approve of what she does, but I totally respect her and her decision to do so. And I understand that for someone her age, with her creative ambitions, it’s very difficult to pay the rent any other way whilst still leaving her time and energy to pursue her dreams.
Now, can we get back to the issue at hand?
“You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
That only works if you accept the highly dodgy premise that womens’ rights are the only, or the most important, issue around childbirth. Many would argue, and not neccessarily from a religious platform, that they are not.
By your argument it is also impossible to believe in the theory of evoultion and be a feminist ? (think about it now…..)
Yes, but why is that your primary shibboleth for being a feminist? Why not include the right to choose who to have sex with, in any freely chosen circumstances? And why not also include the right to possess the tools necessary to enforce that right to choose.
I don’t approve of Palin’s beliefs but the funny thing is you don’t need to in order to support her so long as she follows the US constitution. They don’t have an elective dictatorship as British system tends towards - a state governor (and even president) operates under far stricture rules and it is more important that she agrees to follow them that she agrees with all their consequences. Bush ignored many of these rules and that has led to a number of disasters. Palin, at least, vetoed a bill that would have discriminated against gay couples, even though she is passionately against homosexuality, because the law violated the constitution: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_libertarian_case_for_palin.html
She is certainly religious, but not a theocrat (as some Republicans are). And actually following the constitution would do more to help women’s rights (and everyone’s rights) than anything else on offer for now.
“You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
Hmm…if one believes that a fetus is a person then denying the right to abort isn’t necessarily distinct from denying one the right to kill, any other being. Therefore, one would believe it to be protecting the liberty of a person, rather than intruding upon the liberty of the Mother.
Is it your belief that one should be known as a person once one is separate from the Mother?
Ben
‘Is it your belief that one should be known as a person once one is separate from the Mother?’
Yes.
“Do you think so? I don’t.”
Exactly, my point is that feminism is a very large beast, of which there are many facets and extensions. To claim you can’t be a religious feminist, to me, seems naive. Perhaps you’d be better off saying “You can’t be my kind of feminist and oppose the right to choose”
It’s like saying “You can’t be a liberal and…” before anything, you know you’re jjust going to start a debate about what exactly you mean by liberal.
Well then, your own logic is sound.
The problem is that if one does believe that a person comes into being at conception, one views abortion as an invasion of the liberty of a person rather than the individual act of the Mother. Therefore, one may reject the right to choose entirely.
Ben
Actually, Lee and Nick, I think that abortion rights is an issue that’s central to political feminism. It’s a key piece of legislation, and the fact that it’s a legislative issue is part of what makes it important - it’s less ephemeral than, say, ‘the right to have sex with whoever you want’ (I’m not sure that’s a right, Nick, for men or women). It’s the same as believing that you can’t call yourself a supporter of gay rights without believing in the right of same-sex partners to marry or have a civil partnership, even if you’re a gay person who’s against marriage in their own relationship,
Ben - I think we’re singing from the same hymnsheet here. However -
‘The problem is that if one does believe that a person comes into being at conception, one views abortion as an invasion of the liberty of a person rather than the individual act of the Mother. Therefore, one may reject the right to choose entirely.’
No, even if one believes that a person comes into being at conception, one mayn’t reject the right to choose *entirely*. One can simply argue against it far more strongly. Because a fetus’ ‘rights’, whatever they maybe, must be taken *alongside* the rights of the mother. Especially in cases of rape, incest and where the mother’s health is at stake.
The problem is that we have no way of knowing, scientifically, when personhood starts. Until we have absolute evidence on that front, we must assume that personhood is contingent upon separateness, and that a woman’s right to control what happens to her own body is a fundamental human right.
To claim you can’t be a religious feminist, to me, seems naive. Perhaps you’d be better off saying “You can’t be my kind of feminist and oppose the right to choose”
The central tenet to feminism is the right to be able to choose your own reproductive options. How the hell can you want to restrict those for others and then call yourself a feminist?
I love the fact that the liberals love playing devil’s advocate here, but let’s have another thought experiment.
If someone described themselves as a liberal, but wanted to restrict the rights of others to move around, would you be ok with them calling themselves liberal?
Hell, you get idiot libertarians these days wanting to restrict freedom of movement for people’s these days, and still calling themselves libertarian. What’s up with that?
“The fact that it’s a legislative issue is part of what makes it important”
Isn’t that also what makes it rather less important in the case of Palin, who is running for an executive position?
“The problem is that we have no way of knowing, scientifically, when personhood starts. Until we have absolute evidence on that front, we must assume that personhood is contingent upon separateness, and that a woman’s right to control what happens to her own body is a fundamental human right.”
Devils advocacy : If there was a 1% chance that there was a living human in a house, would you be justified in demolishing the house, on the grounds that there is no absolute evidence that this would be killing someone?
You’re kidding yourself if you believe that Vice Presidents have no power to influence what laws are made or how those laws are *executed* in the US.
Sunny - in principle I am a supporter of free movement of people between states, somewhat against the official Libertarian Party line but there is an interesting discussion of libertarian immigration theory here that does substantiate an anti-immigration position in some circumstances: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
Woobegone: your analogy isn’t sound. Of course I wouldn’t be justified in demolishing the house. A house doesn’t have feelings, or selfhood, or control over its own life. (not getting into psycho-geography here). A woman, on the other hand, is far more than a ‘house’ for a fetus to gestate in.
To extend the analogy somewhat: if there was a woman with her leg trapped under a piece of rubble and the only way to save her limb and salvage a better and more autonomous life for her was to destroy the remaining part of the house to ease the load, and time was ticking, but there was a 1% chance that someone was trapped in there -
I’d do it. If she knew the risks, and asked me to.
“You’re kidding yourself if you believe that Vice Presidents have no power to influence what laws are made or how those laws are *executed* in the US”
Really, what has Bush managed to do despite his outspoken beliefs and evangelist supporters? Banned gay marriage federally? Nope. Overturned woe versus wade? Nope!
Possibly the most didactic opinion piece I’ve ever read in my life, which is saying something.
Oh look, another thread with men telling us what feminism should and shouldn’t be.
I wish I could say I was shocked.
Banned gay marriage federally? Nope. Overturned woe versus wade? Nope!
Bad examples, since these can be done only at state level anyway. And no president would be stupid enough to try and make them federal decisions.
That doesn’t mean the VP has no executive power though, does it?
Sunny - in principle I am a supporter of free movement of people between states, somewhat against the official Libertarian Party line but there is an interesting discussion of libertarian immigration theory here
So, you admit there is difference of opinion on free movement between states among ‘libertarians’.
But even further, what about stopping people moving around even within a country? Could you call yourself a liberal if you stopped that? The feminism example is the same here - you cannot be a feminist if you want to deny women the choice over their own bodies and lives.
Trying to play devil’s advocate with this basic point is rather amusing though. Its a shame many liberals don’t even get feminism.
Sunny - Roe V Wade is a federal Supreme Court decision - it could ONLY be overturned by the federal government. It just happens that the presidency, and vice-presidency, is a poor place to launch such an initiative from.
“So, you admit there is difference of opinion on free movement between states among ‘libertarians’.”
Well yes, but there is also a difference of opinion over whether states should exist at all:) There is still all to play for in the libertarian discussion!
I get the sense here that Laurie has decided that an unborn child becomes a person only at the very last moment because she has first decided that the mother’s rights are paramount.
Once she had decided the latter so the former of course had to follow, else she would be condoning murder.
Can anyone really believe that an unborn child the day before birth is not a person?
“The feminism example is the same here - you cannot be a feminist if you want to deny women the choice over their own bodies and lives.”
I agree, but that would also include what drugs they choose to use or inject. To be principled believer in “choice” even over what to do with your own body is to put you far far out onto the libertarian spectrum compared to mainstream policy.
Gun ownership is the best equalizer of the sexes. You can’t be a feminist unless you support the right of women to use armed defence against stronger male attackers.
gina - hmm. I think men have every right to comment as long as they’re not aggressive or bullying. Here, they’re being aggressive and competitive and playing devil’s advocate all over the place. It’s not respectful. What we need men to do in the feminist movement is listen and work with us rather than tell us where we’re going wrong.
Just imagine if you saw these sort of comments from white men and women on a thread about race.
‘Gun ownership is the best equalizer of the sexes.’
What drivel.
Nobody needs to own a weapon as deadly and inhumane as a gun. If women really want to defend themselves against stronger male attackers they can damn well go to a self-defence class. Men aren’t as physically impressive as all that. You can take them down with a swift kick to the balls, in fact. You don’t need a gun. NOBODY needs a gun.
Laurie- You’re right, they do have a right to comment, but what bugs me is that quite often they don’t comment with anything helpful, but rather tell women exactly what they should be thinking and saying.
That’s not feminism.
And yeah, tell me about it. I have a Bingo card for these sort of debates. Quite often it’s alarming how often you can predict what they’re going to say next.
“I think men have every right to comment as long as they’re not aggressive or bullying. Here, they’re being aggressive and competitive and playing devil’s advocate all over the place. It’s not respectful. What we need men to do in the feminist movement is listen and work with us rather than tell us where we’re going wrong.”
The comments here are no more aggressive than on any comparable thread on Liberal Conspiracy - I mean, here’s one plucked at random from the current most commented thread :
“Chas publishes all that shite at 1.47 in the morning… and he thinks someone else has got a personality disorder!
Wow!”
The internet just isn’t a very respectful place.
Laurie - “…whilst not morally wrong, it’s a bad idea…”
You’ve not quite grasped what morals are, have you? Keep going, you’ll get there one day when you stop getting confused over your use of the English language.
Sunny - “If someone described themselves as a liberal, but wanted to restrict the rights of others to move around, would you be ok with them calling themselves liberal?”
I agree here, but there is a grey area where the desire to create restrictions is often confused with the recognition that some restrictions are essential (I think of driving on the wrong side of the road as a good example).
I get the sense here that Laurie has decided that an unborn child becomes a person only at the very last moment because she has first decided that the mother’s rights are paramount.
Its really playing devil’s advocate too far when self-confessed libertarians who keep castigating New Labour for the nanny state and creeping fascism are then against allowing women abortion rights.
Laurie’s point isn’t a theological discussion about when a baby is an individual. Her point is about allowing women the choice to abortion. Do you want to deny women the choice or not? Stop flaffing about with idiotic points cjcjc.
Nick:
I agree, but that would also include what drugs they choose to use or inject.
Yes, and what’s your point. My point was about imposing restrictions on women about reproductive choices. What’s yours?
Laurie’s point isn’t a theological discussion about when a baby is an individual. Her point is about allowing women the choice to abortion.
And those points aren’t related at all, not no way, not no how…
“Oh look, another thread with men telling us what feminism should and shouldn’t be.”
I think you’ll find it’s a woman trying to tell feminists what feminism should and shouldn’t be.
“The central tenet to feminism is the right to be able to choose your own reproductive options. How the hell can you want to restrict those for others and then call yourself a feminist?”
It’s a central tenet to a certain type of feminism, yes. Why is it impossible for women to believe themselves to be feminists in terms of equality with men, to be free from discrimination and abuse, or even to be (as some feminists believe) better placed than men in the whole scheme of things…yet hold a religious belief about something? Who indeed says that they need to be liberally minded, I certainly have seen no evidence that feminism is inherently liberal in how it is approached, universally it seems that feminism is completely outside of the left and rights of politics and different people apply it in a variety of ways. I’m not saying there is a whole lot of them, but the point is still valid here…you *can* be a religious feminist, just not perhaps the type of feminist that the loud and most popular feminists call themselves.
Now, your argument about the liberal restricting movement is much the same, and that’s my point, as long as you can argue that there is a liberal angle to your decision then you can probably call yourself it. Will I agree that you are? Probably not, but then I’m smart enough (and I would hope most people here are as well) to recognise that these very, VERY, generalised labels are hardly sufficient to be using in the very specific manner they’re being used in debates like these.
‘What do you mean…”you people”? —- What do YOU mean…”you people”?!’ comes to mind.
Here, they’re being aggressive and competitive and playing devil’s advocate all over the place. It’s not respectful.
Can these allegations be a bit more specific? I don’t want to be too prissy and petulant, but it’s uncomfortable to discuss anything if it’s implied that one may only be doing so under the influence of testosterone.
You’ve not quite grasped what morals are, have you? Keep going, you’ll get there one day when you stop getting confused over your use of the English language.
As fun as sneers are, I’m not sure that they’ve ever accomplished anything.
Men aren’t as physically impressive as all that. You can take them down with a swift kick to the balls, in fact.
Hehe…
Laurie’s point isn’t a theological discussion about when a baby is an individual. Her point is about allowing women the choice to abortion. Do you want to deny women the choice or not?
”
Eh? I don’t know why you’re mucking about with a theological strawman. Personhood and liberty are philosophical concepts.
‘NOBODY needs a gun’
Sentimental drivel.
One additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3-4 times more than one additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. Nothing equalizes the sexes like a gun and since you don’t support full equality of the sexes, you can’t really call yourself a feminist. Anyone who pushes for gun control are of the same mind-st as Palistinian suicide bombers and the Taliban who kidnap women for rape and sex-slave trade. Kick them in the balls!? What planet do you live on?
- “Men aren’t as physically impressive as all that. You can take them down with a swift kick to the balls, in fact. You don’t need a gun. NOBODY needs a gun.”
Really? What about disabled people? repeated martial arts lessons are for the time and money rich (who also have a frame suited to some form of self-defence), whereas a gun (in legal circumstances) can be available to those of relatively modest means.
- “Yes, and what’s your point. My point was about imposing restrictions on women about reproductive choices. What’s yours?”
That you can’t be a feminist, by the “body-choice” definition given, without believing in zero drugs restrictions too. But I don’t think thats a position that a majority of feminists hold. Hence the demand of the “body-choice” definition doesn’t hold.
Do you have a source for that stat, Christina? Do you know if rape rates are correlated with gun ownership?
“That you can’t be a feminist, by the “body-choice” definition given, without believing in zero drugs restrictions too. But I don’t think thats a position that a majority of feminists hold. Hence the demand of the “body-choice” definition doesn’t hold.”
This is a really good point Nick, and is precisely what I mean. The abortion debate is important, and those on here know I back abortion rights to the hilt…but to say that it is an inherently feminist thing is…well…it’s only part of the story. It is a liberal feminist thing, and just like a conservative feminist wouldn’t accept drug laws to be relaxed I would expect a conservative feminist to be a little more conflicted on abortion, as I would expect a liberal feminist to be more open to legalisation (or decriminalisation, whatever you want to call it) of drugs.
This is my annoyance, it’s that Laurie does a really good job of portraying *her* feminism as the only one that matters, as if it’s the only type of feminism that is real and has purpose. There are vast amounts of other political views that influence and conflict with the political view of feminism, and this needs to be accepted as a perfectly understandable situation…Palin’s ability to believe herself to be a feminist while not agreeing with abortion being one of those things.
I don’t like the woman, don’t get me wrong, her politics are all wrong for me…but I’m not going to sit here and belittle legitimately formed views because they don’t conform to my own. Question them, sure, fight against them…if I were American…but to try and make out that she simply can’t be what she believes herself to be? That is what is disrespectful in this thread.
Is it your belief that one should be known as a person once one is separate from the Mother?
Frankly, I don’t think anyone should be known as a person until they’re old enough to sell me beer, and even then I’d recommend some pretty stringent conditions.
Like to ask: is this feminism a smokescreen for female chauvinism or a female perspective on gender egalitarianism? If it’s the latter how does it promote equality by going round shouting “nobody messes with me, you asshole!”
My source is ‘More Guns; Less Crime’ by John Lott. Although people have opposed his argument that more guns lead to a reduction in crime, nobody has been able to adequately answer his argument that curbing gun ownership reduces crime or that gun ownership causes more crime. Those two positions are factually and logically insupportable. And yet here we have a fake feminist babbling that ‘guns are inhumane’ and accepting this drivel as self-evident truth. Tell me Laurie, if owning legal guns in itself breeds inhumanity then how come Switzerland, a paradise of social peace compared with the US or UK, is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world?
Bensix, you’re right of course, but without interposing some judgemental mechanism the flaws of her statement may easily be overlooked.
Laurie, please don’t confuse morality with the stigma attatched to immorality. If you are confused about what is ‘moral’ please don’t just assume the people you oppose have a monopoly on it, otherwise you result in defining yourself according to them, rather than according to yourself.
Correction:
I meant to say:
Nobody has been able to adequately answer his argument that curbing gun ownership DOES NOT reduce crime or that more gun ownership DOES NOT cause more crime. His two positions are factually and logically SOUND and unanswerable.
“Frankly, I don’t think anyone should be known as a person until they’re old enough to sell me beer, and even then I’d recommend some pretty stringent conditions.”
Is that legally or could I get away with my personhood if I shoved you a few beers on the quiet?
Ben
That depends what type we’re talking about. If it’s Tennents or Carling, forget it….
Oh, because she said you can’t be pro life and feminist she’s telling women what to do. mmmhmm. That makes a lot of sense.
Predictable as usual.
Christina : Laurie never said that owning guns breeds inhumanity - she said guns are inhumane - so she has no case to answer. You do however when I point out to you that Japan and Singapore are both havens of safety compared to anywhere in the West, and they have extremely strict gun control laws.
Christina, the conflation of issues in such an argument must be disentangled, as I’m sure many people will see from a cursory analysis of Swiss and US social policy relating in particular to education levels.
More guns may or may not mean less crime, but what is certain is that guns are among the most injurious weapons devised by humanity and your placement of death or serious injury by gunshot over rape says something about your personal evaluation of the relative value of life and physical harm.
My personal opinion is that rape is a less serious offence than homicide and it’ll take a lot to convince me otherwise.
Laurie, I think you’re spot on but what always gets me about these debates is not the moral consideration surrounding abortion, it’s easy for a conservative of any stripe to say we shouldn’t be killing babies. How about this, all of you who are opposed to abortion, where are you getting the funding for the orphanages for these extra children? Are you willing to foster and adopt some of the abandoned babies that your policy will create? I suppose the funding for the women who end up in hospital after having illegal abortions will be provided from the budget that previously covered abortions but the creation of a criminal black market will need extra police funding. Then there will be extra healthcare for the ill babies that will be born. Obviously a lot of women in their 20s will have to remove themselves from the job market for a period of time because they will have to give birth, a good proportion of women you know will have had abortions and won’t have told so the economy will also be effected.
To even suggest that we revoke abortion rights in the west is extremely naive and shortsighted because it has had a massive effect on our societies. All you have to do is look at this page. Under the links the date of closure for each of the orphanages is given, we would need to recreate an entire section of our society.
“More guns may or may not mean less crime, but what is certain is that guns are among the most injurious weapons devised by humanity and your placement of death or serious injury by gunshot over rape says something about your personal evaluation of the relative value of life and physical harm.”
Uhh… Christina may just value the health and safety of a law abiding woman (or man even) over the life of a rapist.
Sarah may be able to take her baby to work with her and nurse during a meeting as Governor of Alaska - a state with a population of 626,000 people. It is a different story being the VP of the United States. No CEO in any corporation would do such a thing. I think a woman with children is certainly capable of being the VP or president of the US, but I do question the judgment and “family first” priority of a new mother with a newborn having special needs.
When it comes down to it, where will her allegiance be? With the MILLIONS of people relying upon her to lead the country, or with her children, whether they be pregnant, sick or whatever the issue? Will she be in the Middle East brokering a peace deal and suddenly have to fly home to attend to the health care needs of her infant son? She would be a cruel, heartless mother if she did no less, but she will be an ineffective, laughable joke of a world leader if she places her family priorities ahead of her country.
“Oh, because she said you can’t be pro life and feminist she’s telling women what to do. mmmhmm. That makes a lot of sense.”
Now look in a mirror, and realise what it is I’m getting at.
Nina: I don’t know if anyone here is actually stating a case for abortion to be criminalised, your points are all certainly valid in terms of opposing those that believe so. The issue here is, however, whether or not you can be a feminist and anti-abortion…not really whether abortion is right or not, we’ve had that debate about a million times.
Gina,
I don’t think that Laurie is “telling us” what feminism is or “telling anyone” what feminism is. It’s a contribution towards a definition.
Nina,
Yours is an interesting argument, but not one that’s likely to appeal. It reminds me a little of those who argue that aid to Africa is immoral as depletion of populations that can’t be maintained shouldn’t be fought.
“That depends what type we’re talking about. If it’s f Tennents or Carling, forget it….”
Well, I’ll stick with being a non-person, anyway. Generally, beer tastes like dishwater left to ferment in a toilet bowl.
Ben- you misunderstood me. I was being sarcastic in response to Lee’s comments that she’s telling women what to do.
Lee- aaaand another one for the Bingo square.
Lee:
This is my annoyance, it’s that Laurie does a really good job of portraying *her* feminism as the only one that matters, as if it’s the only type of feminism that is real and has purpose. There are vast amounts of other political views that influence and conflict with the political view of feminism, and this needs to be accepted as a perfectly understandable situation
Erm, that completely undestimates the extent to which abortion rights are central to feminism.
As I said before, its a bit like someone calling themselves a liberal and then being against the free movement of people within a state.
Updated
I’ve updated the article above to include Innerbrat’s comments too, which I think are relevant here too:
See, the thing is, it’s obviously not my position to say with absolute certainty that this particular seventeen year old girl should stay in school, stay single and not be burdened with marriage and motherhood this young. I have no right to cast aspersions on the state of the girl’s education or values that she is pregnant. I don’t know the situation: I don’t know squat about Bristol Palin and I will not pass judgement on her. More than anything else, I believe she has the right to her choice and her privacy.
But Sarah Palin doesn’t think that about me. She wants to take away my (theoretical in existence, theoretical in nationality) daughter’s right to information and education that might reduce her chances of being pregnant. She wants to take away my daughter’s right to privacy (from me). She wants to take away my (TiE;TiN) daughter’s right to make a choice about what to do should she get pregnant.
So yes, this is an issue. And voters do need to ask themselves - if Sarah Palin’s abstinence-only anti-choice policies have worked so well that she’s a grandmother at 44, will they work for your family?
“Lee- aaaand another one for the Bingo square.”
Are you here to contribute, or is your sole purpose to ignore the obvious ironies in what you’re saying?
“Erm, that completely undestimates the extent to which abortion rights are central to feminism.”
To YOUR feminism. You’re using (as Innerbrat does) LIBERAL arguments against CONSERVATIVE views, neither of which are the sole purview of feminists. You believe in a liberal feminism, this does not mean that Sarah Palin cannot be a feminist with religious values and beliefs.
Sunny, as I’ve said before recognising that some restrictions are essential to good practise does not conflict with the idea of liberty, because liberty is not a singular absolute and must be balanced.
It is perfectly liberal to legislate for driving on one side of the road, just like it is perfectly liberal to enforce restrictions on entry to areas where contamination is a concern (crime scenes and nuclear or environmental disaster zones spring to mind at either end of the scale).
It is also perfectly liberal to have regulatory control on markets to prevent the damage caused by distortions (of which abortion is an extreme example caused predominantly by laziness and maleducation).
Balance and equality is not found by tipping the scales all in one direction, but we should remember adjustments are always possible and often desirable.
“As I said before, its a bit like someone calling themselves a liberal and then being against the free movement of people within a state.”
To take this to a seperate point. I am sure I could make a liberal argument as to why lack of free movement is a good thing if I thought about it, no doubt there are others that could to. There is liberalism in vast amounts of things due to it being such a subjective concept based on just which set of criteria someone puts as their priorities. The same can be said for Feminism. Not all liberals agree on everything, even on some of the most key issues such as property, life and money, why must you pretend that Feminists must?
Oh the obvious ironies? My problem, Lee, is that here, and elsewhere on the site you have habit of telling feminists what they should think. At one point during a debate about pro choice and pro life you told someone they shouldn’t fling the word misogynist around and that they should get “back on topic.” It IS on topic. Controlling a woman’s reproductive rights IS misogyny.
And if you’re wondering why I’m being so flippant, I see your type all the time. You have no desire to educate yourself about feminism, you simply think the big bad mean ol “ironic” feminists are attacking you. There, I contributed something, but it will likely just fall on deaf ears anyway, so I may as well pull out the bingo card again.
My advice to you is this: If you feel anger towards a feminist because they disagreed with you it is not because they ironically placed those feelings there, it is because they were already there. Your responsibility is to educate yourself and learn- it isn’t mine. If i stopped to play teacher to every ignorant person on the net I’d be wasting my time.
“You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
Dam right.
What people like Nick don’t seem to understand is that choice, means choice. I do not give a shit if a woman wants to have an abortion or not. It is her body, and her right to decide. What religious fundamentalist want, is to take away that choice. If the Palin family wants to keep their baby then fine. But Palin wants to take the choice to have an abortion away from other families who may not want to keep their baby.
It is not acceptable for Palin to claim this is a “ private family matter” because Palin and her like would like to use the power of the state to interfere in other family’s “private matters.” Unfortunately, this is so typical of the simpleton, Christian fundamentalist hick bullshit, that has taken over the Republican party.
Palin also believes in book banning. Here is a piece from Time…….
“ as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving “full support” to the mayor.”
When conservatives talk of freedom, what the hell are they talking about?
Lee is a concern troll.
Very concerned that liberals don’t say nasty things that will upset the poor little Copnservatives.
Lee - The point is that feminism is not an ideology, but a movement.
Feminism is a coalition between illiberal feminist chauvinists (not all of whom are female) and liberal gender egalitarians (only some of whom are female)
The movement cracks as soon as the divisions are exposed and women are forced to choose whether they are for women first or humanity first.
In standing up for equality of course you are going to tread on a few toes in the meantime, but in their opposition they dream of their jackboots stamping on our faces, forever.
Thomas, I sincerenly doubt that most unwanted pregnancies are conceived due to laziness and maleducation. Contraceptive failure, believing that you are infertile (during menopause), are all factors leading to unwanted pregnancies and my bet is the first accounts for the bulk…
Gina, enabling a woman to have control of her own reproductive abilities is liberation and is done by creating boundaries of acceptability so that she is able to accept the responsibility for her behaviour.
Without discernable and enforced boundaries then liberty descends into anarchic chaos, so your criticism of those who wish to help as misogynist exposes your own misandry.
thomas- the man who said we all want to stomp on men’s faces with our jackboots called me a misandrist.
lol
And you wonder why we don’t take you seriously.
Pippa, I do love a betting woman - what are you prepared to gamble? your dignity, or your credibility?
Frankly, the cause of abortion in any particular society is contingent on the morality of that society - so whatever the case it is caused by failure. And in my book the only good thing about failure is that it provides an example to learn from.
Gina, no I didn’t.
If that was your impression then it was all a projection of your own mind, so I’ll leave readers of this thread to judge for themselves.
Palin is nuts!
Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
I”n standing up for equality of course you are going to tread on a few toes in the meantime, but in their opposition they dream of their jackboots stamping on our faces, forever”
I don’t want to stamp on anyones face Thomas, I just want to be able to control my own body.
Give it up, you are talking bullshit.
For the man who questioned the assertion that one can’t oppose abortion and be feminist , I’m guessing you’re a young man. Woman are “of the body” in a way that men aren’t. Your intellectual (and I’m using that word generously) response is a perfect example. It’s something that took me about 10 years of marriage to figure out. To deny a woman reproductive rights is to deny her fundamentally. Now, to say that a woman is ALL about the body, is equally silly, but I really believe that’s the center from which women operate. Helene Cixous has written about this gloriously.
Lordy… great post, Laurie. Shame about the comment thread. Some people just have no idea.
Well, I have just rolled in from work and read this, and am moved to observe that I think Laurie’s post is one of the best things I’ve read on Palin… you cannot be a feminist (or indeed, a human being who truly thinks of women as equals, methinks) and oppose a woman’s right to choose.
That is exactly right. You can’t be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose. You can, however, be a female politician who decides to build a career around pandering to middle America’s endless anti-liberal hangups. I give you Sarah Palin.
Well done, Laurie. Pour it on, sis.
Lee, you’re clearly not getting this are you?
What defines liberalism? Or can anyone call themselves ‘liberal’? I suppose if Joseph Stalin wanted to call himself liberal you’d have a discussion about the extent to which property rights can be protected… or you’d think he was a twat.
The point is, there are some ideals that define a movement.. and control over reproductive rights incl abortion defines feminism. There’s no way of getting around that.
And if you buy into this bullshit about ‘conservative feminists’ and ‘feminists for life’ just having the interests of women at heart, then I’m sorry but you’ve fallen for rubbish. You might as well be a black person joining ‘black men for slavery’ because apparently black slaves were treated better than ordinary people during the time.
thomas -
Feminism is a coalition between illiberal feminist chauvinists
How are you defining illiberal here? You guys really are confused. Either there are some basic ideals that define a movement, in which case you can throw around the words ‘illiberal’ and ‘anti-feminist’, or nothing is certain and the stupid labels that thomas is using are no use. Sort it out amongst yourselves. I think the women here are pretty much agreed on the issue. That should tell you something
Sally, you were being a bit extreme, so I’m glad you accepted the power of rhetoric and could moderate yourself even if you needed to get a sly dig in at the end to save face.
You do have that choice, within limits, like 24 weeks limit (minding exceptions). Our debate is not over whether choice is a good thing but what the limits of that choice should be, so I don’t know why we are getting hot under our collars.
The debate on the other side of the Atlantic is a different matter however, and Palin shows how it is choice itself which is under attack, not women - so this isn’t about feminism, it’s about liberty.
Can you be a feminist and anti-abortion?
If by feminist you mean female chauvinist who doesn’t take into account anything any man says, then easily, because there are no half measures among illiberals.
If by feminist you mean gender egalitarian, then this is a false question, as most of us here would agree, the real choice is a question of at what stage of the pregnancy does the acceptability of abortion turn unacceptable - and not who chooses.
Sunny- Isn’t it “amusing” that the blokes here are completely ignoring your arguments yet head patting the women with drivel like “i’m glad you accepted the power of rhetoric.”
Cowards.
No, thomas, i don’t think most of agree with your definition of the “real choice”. But, I think the sensible people here might agree that you defining for the ladies here what the question is. it’s pompous and sophomoric. as we say here in texas, just shut the fuck up.
No, thomas, i don’t think most of us agree with your definition of the “real choice”. But, I think the sensible people here might agree that you defining for the ladies here what the question is, is pompous and sophomoric. as we say here in texas, just shut the fuck up.
Way to go Joe, stick a gun in my face! I like threats, me.
Sorry Sunny, but some of us don’t run with the crowd. I think you need to be clear about your own definitions and the limitations of your own biases.
Suely, feminism is poorly defined according to your terms.
sorry, thomas. I’m trying to quit smoking. that was unfair. BUT, I really think some of us me (me included) would serve the the cause of women best by just shutting up.
Actually Joe, I think you should talk a lot more. ;)
That’s OK Joe, but I disagree.
The cause of humanity is best served by getting men and women talking to each other. Or Arabs and Israeli, or police and protesters, or nationalists and unionists - oh, isn’t that what democratic politics is about?
However, I also agree, that there is a time and a place and once you feel you’ve made your full contribution you should withdraw gracefully.
Thanks ginaSketch, then let me just add that it has been the modus operandi of the male medical establishment to diagnose women who kick too hard with “Hysteria”. So when Thomas begins to suggest that your imagining things, he’s evoking his own subtle brand of jack-booted thuggery. Husbands say these sorts of things to wives all the time. Again, it’s about the body, I think. Men want to control women’s bodies. It’s what we want more than anything else and HOW we do it is, quite often, by convincing them that they’re crazy, or stupid.
Why is it everytime I encounter Lee Griffen he’s trying to tell women what is or isn’t feminism and/or sexism.
Lee, if you could explain which ‘Liberal argument’ I have used against which ‘Conversative view’, I’d be obliged.
The point is, there are some ideals that define a movement.. and control over reproductive rights incl abortion defines feminism. There’s no way of getting around that.
I’m going to ignore Sarah Palin for a moment. Everyone here agrees that she should be kept away from the Presidency like a pyromaniac from a lighter.
The distinction that I think should be made, though, is feminism as Laurie is attempting to distinctly define it and what may constitute a feminist cause. For example, consider the recent protests in Turkey against draconian “exhibitionism” laws. Many of the protestors would oppose the right to abort, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be supported in their opposition to patriarchal oppression.
And please, can people stop the broad-brush remarks about a variety of others “not getting it”. If you disagree with a comment then refute it directly, but don’t loftily condemn anyone in sight.
Ben
Nothing really to add to the all too familiar feminist squabble, but this is probably the most hilarious thing I’ve read on a serious political site in a long time:
“Anyone who pushes for gun control are of the same mind-st as Palistinian suicide bombers and the Taliban who kidnap women for rape and sex-slave trade.”
I think I feel an internal combustion coming on…
Sunny, other mods: the side thread about gun control/safety was getting quite interesting, but it is a distraction. Could we have a couple of guest posts on the subject from a UK perspective, please?
Back to the topic: I have been surprised how few times the word “moral” (or its forms) has been used in this thread. Opposition to abortion has been described as “conservatism”, but surely “right to choose” is a moral judgement (possibly based on religious teaching, but that is irrelevant). I have known many liberal people (men and women) who support reproductive rights (eg contraception) but who oppose abortion. Some would be happy with the morning-after pill, others would consider it a form of abortion.
Opponents of abortion may be more commonly conservatives, but if we are genuinely liberal, there should be space for liberal moralist opponents. Science struggles to define when a foetus becomes a person, so we should respect those who wish to protect foetuses, even when we disagree.
The moral argument about abortion is an important one, because of the effect of pregnancy on the woman. Earlier in the thread, someone commented about “body consciousness” and the difference between men and women. When a woman is pregnant, her hormones change, stimulating different behaviour and attitudes; a woman’s body system is geared up to producing and nurturing a child. The woman may have rational reasons for an abortion, but her body is contrarily saying “look after this baby”, so a moral argument, backed up by community, will help her to overcome feelings of guilt.
A moral argument for abortion may be constructed about “inappropriate circumstances to bring up a child” or rape. Inconvenient foetus disposal is more difficult to qualify.
. This supports the woman who wishes to have an abortion.
Doh, ignore the last paragraph in my previous post which was an editing glitch. My post was intended to end with “…difficult to qualify.”
Thankfully, it’s not working.
I should say that it is working just fine. From McCains point of view, one effect of this pick was to drive a section of the other sides coalition nuts.
Laurie Penny,
Excellent post. I am struggling to understand what there is in it to disagree with. I’d have thought that feminism was defined, at a minimum, by the right of a woman to control her own reproduction. Surrender of that principle would undercut almost any other ambition that feminists might have. It would be as if the last fifty years hadn’t happened.
Lee @39 and Gina @53
A woman telling other women what feminism should be about?
I take issue, first off, with the frankly patronising fact that you assume I’m only talking to other women when I’m talking about wimminz issues. Not that that stops you getting in my face and telling me where I’m wrong, of course. Oh no.
What I am doing is presuming to define one of the central tenets of feminism. The fact that I am a **female** feminist means that I get to even attempt to do this in the same way that white anti-racists’ job is to participate in debte and offer support, but not to tell BME people what their experiences of racism are and how they should react to them.
Thanks Gina, you’re a mate. :)
@ thomas’ many pokes to get me to talk about morality:
No, babe. ‘Immoral’ and ‘a bad idea’ don’t mean the same thing. It’s a bad idea to cross the road without looking both ways, but it’s not immoral. There are plenty of things people can do to fuck their lives up. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to make their own mistakes.
ginasketch: “And if you’re wondering why I’m being so flippant, I see your type all the time.”
Likewise, I’m glad I made a lasting impression on you, but it seems given you cannot tell the difference between someone willing to engage in debate and someone telling you what to think. I also find it amusing you think I’m angered, if I was to describe any emotion that comes out of these frequent debates surrounding feminism it is disappointment that a discussion cannot stay on the topic it is developing around without accusations being thrown around.
Sunny: “Lee, you’re clearly not getting this are you?”
Right back at you ;)
“What defines liberalism? Or can anyone call themselves ‘liberal’? I suppose if Joseph Stalin wanted to call himself liberal you’d have a discussion about the extent to which property rights can be protected… or you’d think he was a twat.”
What is the difference between a liberal that believes in no taxation, and a liberal that believes in total taxation? Quite a lot, but they’re still liberal, just with different priorities.
“The point is, there are some ideals that define a movement.. and control over reproductive rights incl abortion defines feminism. There’s no way of getting around that.”
And the point I’m making is pretty much in line with this, she can call herself a feminist and could be 90% in line with what you’re thinking, but because she’s not in “your club” of perfect priorities you can’t accept that she genuinely (or maybe not, I don’t know the woman) believes herself to be a feminist. Does this make all her feminism wrong? If she stands up for equal employment rights (again, not saying she does) then is she any less a feminist than you? If she believes women are better off for following God’s way then that’s her choice, her choice if she were to push for it through legislation would be absolutely irrespective to her feminism and instead totally to do with her politics.
“And if you buy into this bullshit about ‘conservative feminists’ and ‘feminists for life’ just having the interests of women at heart, then I’m sorry but you’ve fallen for rubbish.”
I’m not buying in to anything, but I’m also not simply throwing scorn and disrespect at people I fundamentally disagree with either. I will, however, accept that there can be feminists out there that believe such things. I know you’d rather pull the covers over and pretend they don’t exist, but perhaps that’s just not going to work :)
“You might as well be a black person joining ‘black men for slavery’ because apparently black slaves were treated better than ordinary people during the time. ”
Jokes about the BNP aside, there’s a world of difference between accepting what that black person were to say and arguing/debating/educating/whatever about the realities…and saying that perhaps he is the perfect example of someone that doesn’t deserve to be alive right now.
Debi: “Why is it everytime I encounter Lee Griffen he’s trying to tell women what is or isn’t feminism and/or sexism.”
I really do find it quite funny…so many feminists thinking I’m trying to tell them what it is that they are actually thinking or following, when what I’m simply saying…more often than not…is that they are not considering what other people are thinking or following has any merit :) God forbid someone come along and question just how narrow your viewpoints are, if anyone does they must immediately be branded as trying to impose their “narrow” viewpoint on you!
“Lee, if you could explain which ‘Liberal argument’ I have used against which ‘Conversative view’, I’d be obliged.”
You haven’t piped up in this thread except to grace us with your opinion about how much of a cock you feel I am, so I don’t think you’ve really used any argument relevant to the topic I was discussing with Sunny.
To clarify, I’m not the person here telling anyone what feminism is or isn’t, if you believe I am trying to tell you what to think then you need to take a little more time reading over what is actually being said. :)
Joe: “To deny a woman reproductive rights is to deny her fundamentally.”
I’m not arguing that this is or isn’t the case. What I am saying is that for religious people faith and God come above everything else, and so to deny their religion is to deny them fundamentally also. This is why I certainly can’t find a serious argument as to why a religious woman can’t be a feminist in her own way, subservient (as with the male gender) to their religion before all else.
Now Palin’s problem is that in this view (again, if it really is her view) she is staking out a very non-liberal argument that religion is the truth and all us sinners need to accept this whether we believe it or not. If she is pushing for legislation it is because of conservative politics, not any lack of feminism that she may feel she holds. And we argue against it why? Because we’re liberal and we don’t believe in lack of choice that organised religion and busy-body ultra-right politicians tend to foist on us.
Where does feminism come in to our gripe with this woman? Oh…nowhere, except that one type of feminist is really pissy that a person not totally in tune with them is calling themselves a feminist too.
Maybe it’s my age, but I was taught to cross the road with the moral that ‘if you look before you cross, you’ll never get hit by a bus’.
‘a bad idea’ does imply that the referenced action will lead to an unwanted outcome - in other words ‘a bad idea’ is literally so because of the causal properties involved.
Morality also implies causal inference and therefore IS the same thing, whereas immorality is a negation which could refer to the process or the consequence. The employ of negative terms is a shoddy tactic of misapplication which creates confusion and raises the emotive stakes, so it is you, Laurie, who are responsible for the bad language which created the confusion and caused all the insults thrown in this thread.
If you did it accidentally then you should go back to school, but if you did it deliberately you should be ashamed.
““You cannot be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to choose.”
That only works if you accept the highly dodgy premise that womens’ rights are the only, or the most important, issue around childbirth. Many would argue, and not neccessarily from a religious platform, that they are not.
By your argument it is also impossible to believe in the theory of evoultion and be a feminist ? (think about it now…..)
”
I have thought about it, Matt, and your logic is still drivel.
Excellent article - Palin really does seem to be massively unhelpful, frighteningly right-wing and largely corrupt…
*blinkblink*
Lee, I was linked to this post because I was quoted. I read the comment thread and found you specifically dismissing what I’d said as “LIBERAL arguments against CONSERVATIVE views,” so I asked you to clarify.
Clearly you’d rather be smug and condescending and comfortable in your privilege. Please, feel free continue discussing MY words with Sonny. Nothing flatters me more than having two men discuss me without my input.
*checks thread*
Ye gods…
I have stopped trying to read this thread and am hitting my head against the desk. Lee, you’d better give Debi a good answer to her question y’hear?
Why can’t I spell anyone’s names right? Lee, Sunny, I apologise from the depths of my fingers.
Lee,
You have not answered the fundamental question, have you? Your post at 102 swings everywhere, but it does not, as far as I can see, address the quite obvious point that feminism is based on ownership of your uterus. Whilst neither you nor I have one, it seems to me that women should have that right. What’s to disagree?
What makes you think at any point I was referencing what Sunny quoted? I started in this debate long before your stuff got added to the main article. No offence, but you think awfully highly of yourself if you think I was referring to you personally when I said what you are quoting from me. One thinks you flatter yourself enough without two men discussing anything at all. ;)
What I will say is that I don’t disagree with your general attitude that Palin’s candidacy is something worthy of opposing, and that her being there is detrimental to the progression of positive health and education in at least the US. The only thing I’d question in what is quoted in the main article is why you say you aren’t going to judge their personal family situation (very noble), but then proceed to judge it (ignoble).
While I disagree with pretty much everything Sarah Palin believes, at least she is consistent on the abortion question. There are few things more hypocritical than pro-lie people who allow incest and rape exemptions, just because they don’t like the circumstances of conception. So while she wants a policy which would cause great damage to the lives of many mothers and their unwanted children, at least she appears to want it out of personal moral principle and not a mysoginistic desire to control.
I don’t they’re having the same argument in America over Palin, largely because the left there, it seems, is more aware of feminist arguments. Sure, they have right-wing nutjobs galore, but the dividing line on these issues is pretty clear.
Here, because we don’t have such clear ideological demarcations, I think the points about feminism or sometimes lost. As is also the case with other issues.
Coming back to Lee:
I’m not arguing that this is or isn’t the case. What I am saying is that for religious people faith and God come above everything else, and so to deny their religion is to deny them fundamentally also.
No one is denying Palin her religious rights nor her own family rights. The point is she wants to deny those rights to other women.
Now. Again, if I haven’t gotten across clearly enough that reproductive rights are pretty central to feminism, regardless of whether you’re conservative or liberal, then you’re not really getting feminism. The 90% other stuff she may agree with isn’t relevant because women having control over their own bodies is 90% of feminism. Its not a small part of it. Economic rights are there too, but frankly you cannot deny those rights and say well you have 90% of all other feminist rights so what’s the problem? because it doesn’t work. Your argument doesn’t stack up. I suggest reading a bit more feminism.
I will concede one point though. In case of race politics for example, there are far too many people willing to shut down the debate amongst themselves by saying another (brown/black) person is an ‘uncle tom’ or ‘white-washed’ etc and is saying things only to appease white people. I’m not a fan of it. So I agree that people far too easily say this person or that person isn’t a feminist or leftist etc.
After all, Thomas is happily throwing around the word ‘illiberal’ like confetti. We’re plagued by libertarian commentators who throw the word ‘fascist’ around like its 1930s Germany. These are all examples of political hyperbole.
But there are certain basic rules here. If the state is locking people up without trial, and executing them, then you can be pretty certain you’re living in a police state - there’s very little in the way of ifs and buts. Similarly, if a brother is part of ‘black people for slavery’, then its pretty clear he ain’t an equality activist. The same goes for feminism. I can’t really make the point too many times or any more clearer.
“Your post at 102 swings everywhere, but it does not, as far as I can see, address the quite obvious point that feminism is based on ownership of your uterus. Whilst neither you nor I have one, it seems to me that women should have that right. What’s to disagree?”
The feminism you and I know and love is indeed centred on that, I’ve never denied this, I’ve put many an emphasis on how much I don’t deny this. However I also don’t deny that a person can be completely and utterly legitimate in their belief they are a feminist while following a religion as near-as-damnit to the letter of the (holy) law.
Do you disagree that if a woman puts god and her religion as a priority she can still be a feminist while believing wholeheartedly that the only choice she has available to her..indeed perhaps the only positive choice…is to carry through with a pregnancy? This is the fundamental question here, nothing else.
Debi - sorry, to clarify, I added your comments half-way because I thought they were very relevant to the thread.
Charlieman - erm, you want a side discussion on gun ownership and feminism? Erm.. who’s gonna write that?
Um, Lee?
You’re using (as Innerbrat does) LIBERAL arguments against CONSERVATIVE views, neither of which are the sole purview of feminists.
You challenged the lady’s words. Going to try and answer what you meant by that challenge?
Sorry, I’ve only just notice that. I was referring to Laurie, not to innerbrat. Your quoting her must have put her name in my mind when typing out the line. Innocent mistake.
And when I say “Your” I meant sunny, because although you, MatGB was posting, me last seeing Sunny as the last person that posted put it in my mind that you were him :P Confusion land ahoy.
What makes you think at any point I was referencing what Sunny quoted?
Well, my first clue was when you referred to me directly by handle. But as you seem to have an aversion to actually backing your shit up, I’ll just go to bed, I think.
Sunny, thanks for the link and the quote. No need to apologise at all.
Laurie, I didn’t mention this, so I will now - fantastic post.
Sunny, what is the singular of confetti?
Sunny: have known for a while that Lee doesn’t get feminism. Bless him ;)
Agreed with whoever it was up there who said that a Liberal should have no issue with Palin denying herself an abortion because of her religion, it’s her denying them to other people because of her religion that’s the issue.
“No one is denying Palin her religious rights nor her own family rights. The point is she wants to deny those rights to other women.”
Which is not at it’s forefront a feminist issue,
- direct link -
Nick