I guess the first is to say that if there is one topic that will always receive a response it will be feminism and abortion and the arguments generated from pro-choice and pro-life sides of the debate. I think at times it is necessary to differentiate between pro-life and pro-choice in this way because there are those who claim to be pro-life and feminist which is evident in this article. In fact some who say they are pro-life claim to have womens’ best interests at heart. These people also suggest it is feminism that is more harmful and detrimental to women. This scenario shows how feminism has so many different meanings and many interpretations but it appears, as with most antifeminism, there is a rudimentry understanding of feminism.
I find the opening line about drawing most knowledge about feminism from the pro-life movement very interesting considering the article continues in this manner. The article seems to imply that this may have changed with further consideration of other points of view. However upon reading the article and the line that ‘feminism was all about women demanding their right to abort’ would indicate that other points are view have been looked at but simply discarded. This is not surprising. This line also fails to consider that feminism was interested in so many more things besides giving women choice over abortion. What many antifeminists don’t look at is the broader reason of how feminism came to see the right to abortion as integral to a woman having total control of her body. Historically, women have not had total control. Often women did experience unwanted pregnancies, sometimes unwanted sex but because a common belief was that it their duty or men should have sex whenever men wanted, unwanted sex and pregnancy were simply tolerated.
Feminism instead said that women should not have to tolerate unwanted sex or unwanted pregnancies. As a result, a whole new way of thinking emerged that saw women ‘reclaim’ their bodies and view them in a different light. Sexual liberation as written in the above article implies that it was all about being able to have sex whenever and wherever a woman likes. This is not entirely true. Yes it was about being able to have sex and for this to be enjoyable for women, but it was also about being able to say no and for this to respected without being seen as ‘frigid’. Sexual liberation was also about creating new understandings of women’s bodies. Within medical and scientific theories women’s bodies were seen as faulty, hysterical and uncontrollable. Feminism attempted to change these ideas and show that women’s bodies were not faulty and uncontrollable.
The issue of morality is very interesting. Like many antifeminists, morality is associated with abortion. It is often seen to be something higher than humanity, something that guides us without our interference. This point of view is questionable as morality is often taken for granted. But what is moral in our society changes. What is moral in our culture is immoral in another. We also have to consider different historical periods because when we do we realise that morality is something very much influenced by people and therefore forever changing.
Abortion and antifeminism 16/09/2009
Tags: anti-feminism, antifeminism, feminism, history
I guess the first is to say that if there is one topic that will always receive a response it will be feminism and abortion and the arguments generated from pro-choice and pro-life sides of the debate. I think at times it is necessary to differentiate between pro-life and pro-choice in this way because there are those who claim to be pro-life and feminist which is evident in this article. In fact some who say they are pro-life claim to have womens’ best interests at heart. These people also suggest it is feminism that is more harmful and detrimental to women. This scenario shows how feminism has so many different meanings and many interpretations but it appears, as with most antifeminism, there is a rudimentry understanding of feminism.
I find the opening line about drawing most knowledge about feminism from the pro-life movement very interesting considering the article continues in this manner. The article seems to imply that this may have changed with further consideration of other points of view. However upon reading the article and the line that ‘feminism was all about women demanding their right to abort’ would indicate that other points are view have been looked at but simply discarded. This is not surprising. This line also fails to consider that feminism was interested in so many more things besides giving women choice over abortion. What many antifeminists don’t look at is the broader reason of how feminism came to see the right to abortion as integral to a woman having total control of her body. Historically, women have not had total control. Often women did experience unwanted pregnancies, sometimes unwanted sex but because a common belief was that it their duty or men should have sex whenever men wanted, unwanted sex and pregnancy were simply tolerated.
Feminism instead said that women should not have to tolerate unwanted sex or unwanted pregnancies. As a result, a whole new way of thinking emerged that saw women ‘reclaim’ their bodies and view them in a different light. Sexual liberation as written in the above article implies that it was all about being able to have sex whenever and wherever a woman likes. This is not entirely true. Yes it was about being able to have sex and for this to be enjoyable for women, but it was also about being able to say no and for this to respected without being seen as ‘frigid’. Sexual liberation was also about creating new understandings of women’s bodies. Within medical and scientific theories women’s bodies were seen as faulty, hysterical and uncontrollable. Feminism attempted to change these ideas and show that women’s bodies were not faulty and uncontrollable.
The issue of morality is very interesting. Like many antifeminists, morality is associated with abortion. It is often seen to be something higher than humanity, something that guides us without our interference. This point of view is questionable as morality is often taken for granted. But what is moral in our society changes. What is moral in our culture is immoral in another. We also have to consider different historical periods because when we do we realise that morality is something very much influenced by people and therefore forever changing.