Editor's note: This article originally ran in the feminist ezine Blue Stocking. I used to just link to the article, but the web site appears to have gone away. If the zine is still being produced and anyone knows where to find it, please drop me an email. Thank you. --jr
The following article ran in the August 1993 issue of Blue Stocking. We received many letters critical of Jenny Westberg's stance as well as a letter from another pro-life feminist associated with "Feminists for Life." Blue Stocking's editorial stance is pro-choice. Jenny Westberg left Advocates for Life as this story went to print in August of 1993 and as Advocates for Life began condoning killing to prevent abortions. She felt extremely betrayed by that organization.
by Jenny Westberg
Caryn Brooks put forward an excellent proposal in July's Blue Stocking: the feminist movement should "accept anyone with two X chromosomes." YES! Some feminists may see this as a mistake. Diversity's fine, to a point. But if you open up the doors, won't all the riffraff want in? As a certified member of the riffraff, I'd like to speak to that issue. You probably gathered from the title that I'm a pro-lifer. In fact, I'm a member of Advocates for Life. (Okay, I'm not really a member; strictly speaking, we have no members. Let's just say I'm "in concert.") I'm also a feminist.
Many of you would say, "How can you possibly reconcile feminism and anti-feminism?" Well, I don't see it that way. I simply believe that both the born and the unborn have rights.
I believe that the unborn person has the right to continue living, without direct interference, regardless of age, gender, race, handicap, social class, circumstances of conception, or immediate level of "wantedness." Furthermore, I do not believe it's necessary to prove that an unborn child is a person for these protections to be morally required; the possibility is sufficient. If doctors and ethicists want to quibble among themselves, fine; but let's have a moratorium on abortions until the unborn child is proved to be more expendable than a mink, or a veal calf, or a dog in a hair spray testing lab, or an old-growth forest.
I'm a feminist because I believe that women are full human beings, with the right to think, act and achieve to their fullest potential, without the artificial limitations that society has historically imposed. I also happen to think that if women had more options, and more genuine respect, there would be fewer abortions.
Consider these reasons for abortion:
"My husband will leave me if I have the baby." "My boyfriend doesn't want
a kid." "My dad will kick me out of the house." "I'll lose my job." "I'll
have to quit school."
All of these are based on inequality, dependence, and lack of options. No woman should have to "choose" between abortion and poverty, abortion and homelessness, abortion and abandonment. No woman would have to "choose" abortion for rape, because no woman should be raped. The advent of prenatal testing has brought about new categories of discrimination-based abortions. It's all very well to insist on wheelchair accessibility and sign language interpreters at progressive conferences, but the simultaneous insistence on the right to abort "defective" persons speaks much more loudly. The birth of a physically or mentally challenged child is seen as so undesirable that it is used as a primary defense for the absolute right to post-viability abortions. To me, it rings hollow to tell differently-abled persons that we consider them as valuable as ourselves, when it's so glaringly obvious that we consider their births to have been tragedies.
Abortion-rights advocates stress that the right to abortion must be absolute, or it is meaningless. A woman's private decision cannot be questioned or subject to external judgment regarding her reasons for wanting an abortion. Certainly this is logical, but it is also unfortunate; it necessarily protects such atrocities as sex-selection abortion. And which gender do you suppose is more frequently aborted on this basis? You may choose from (a) females and (b) females. Various studies have shown an overwhelming preference for firstborn males among American men and women; likewise, couples are more apt to feel they need to "complete" or "balance" a family composed of girls by gender-selecting a boy, than the other way around.
Because I hold the above "anti-choice" ideas, I'm given to understand that I'm not allowed to be part of the feminist movement. Now, it's nothing new for me to have my ideas dismissed out of hand, but generally it's been by smug, patronizing testosterone-drunk MEN! The feminist establishment's dissent-suppressing attitude is, in my opinion, wholly patriarchal. The funny thing is that the supposedly rigid, close-minded conservatives I know behave in a manner that is often more liberal and tolerant than the party-line feminists. Although most of my conservative friends disagree with me quite strongly on women's rights issues, they tolerate a great deal more debate than most feminists.
The sort of pro-censorship feminism I'm talking about is exemplified by this statement from Robin Morgan: "The New Ms. Magazine will unfailingly treat a woman's right to an abortion as sacrosanct. There will be no dissent on that in our pages."
"There will be no dissent"--! What is she so scared of? It happens that I agree with the National Organization for Women on several issues. Yet I'm not allowed to work with NOW on any issue, because I disagree with the party line on abortion.
This bothers me because I feel so strongly that gender-based discrimination MUST be opposed. Most of my conservative friends, of course, feel the feminist movement MUST be opposed. I'm not able to do a whole lot about women's rights except within the feminist movement. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but it seems to be that the feminist movement began as a much more inclusive entity, reaching out to Amazons and beauty queens, housewives and executives, liberals, conservatives, and anarchists. All you needed to be part of the movement, as I recall, were those two X chromosomes.
But at some point, apparently, the feminist establishment determined that they needed a great deal fewer adherents, and began systematically excommunicating one another for violating a standard of Total Philosophical Purity.
Excluded (or highly suspect) groups include: pro-lifers; Republicans; Libertarians; conservative Democrats; members of most organized religions; stay-at-home mothers/wives; and anyone who dissents from whatever unwritten agenda is currently in force. That's an awful lot of people. Right now there's a big debate between the pornography-is-exploitation feminists and pornography-is-sexuality feminists. Given the current exclusionary policies of the feminist movement, it seems inevitable that whichever group prevails will expel the other group in its entirety. Is this any way for a movement to grow?
There are many women out there who are dedicated anti-feminist activists, such as the members of Concerned Women for America and Eagle Forum. These women are articulate and talented. Many of them work outside the home in low-paying jobs with little potential for advancement. Many others do piecework or child care, at home, for slave wages. On top of their paid employment and their hours of activism, they are expected to take care of the housework and most of the parenting, and take care of the emotional needs of their allegedly fully-grown husbands.
These women are oppressed and they know it. They want to do something about their situation. Why are they working against feminism? For one thing, the feminist movement wants no part of them. They're conservative: they're an anathema. Feminist's message to conservative women is "We don't want you. We don't care about you." When a Beverly LaHaye or Phyllis Schlafly comes along and tells them that feminism is the enemy, it tends to ring true.
If NOW and the rest of the feminist establishment allowed more women's voices to be heard (even if the current feminist agenda remained entirely unchanged), the feminist movement might well pick up quite a few of these hardworking activists. LaHaye's group has 150,000 dues-paying members, and a mailing list of half a million. If the feminist movement could attract some of these women away from LaHaye's camp, it might result in the kind of NOW enrollment that would really strike fear into the heart of the patriarchy. Apparently NOW is in denial about all this. One of their ads reads: "We don't expect every woman in America to join NOW, just the 100 million who are discriminated against." Oh, really? Does NOW expect me to join? HA! They wouldn't touch my membership with a 10-foot coat hanger. Just who are we fighting?
I'm tired of the pervasive attitude that says "sit own and shut up." I'm sick of people telling me not to think for myself. ("We'll tell you what to think!")
I don't like it from the Right, and I don't like it from the Left. At least the Right is honest about it! The fundamentalists come right out and say that men have a God-given position of authority over women; that the husband is ordained to be the head of the household; that a woman's primary role is that of mother and nurturer; that a "good woman" is submissive, gentle and silent.
The Left, on the other hand, tells women to speak out -- and then refuses to listen.
I like women and I respect women's ideas. When I read Blue Stocking, I read it carefully and thoughtfully. I certainly don't agree with everything -- far from it -- but I am often moved, challenged, inspired. What I don't agree with, I try to respect: and I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I submit that we can work together, in an inclusive women's movement that's mature enough to tolerate more than one set of opinions. Eleanor Smeal has said that if women ever got together, at the same hour on the same day, we'd go over the top. Sisters don't always agree on everything, but sisterhood is still powerful. Let's do it.
Blue Stocking
PO Box 6706
Portland, Oregon USA 97228-6706
Email: bluesock@teleport.com
Back to Essays