Feminists For...What?

Though feminism was once a titan movement of coherent objectives, it is now descending into the den of ambiguity. The trouble is that feminist groups, right-wing haters and everyone in between still believes the term “feminism” means something. A largely unrelated mass of issues has settled under the domain of “feminism” and is weakening the movement. \nA grassroots organization known as Feminists for Life takes advantage of feminism’s many meanings. The group believes in the feminist principles of “justice, nondiscrimination and nonviolence.” That sounds good. But the group also says “women deserve better” than abortion. Surprise!\nFor many feminists, the name “Feminists for Life” is an oxymoron. After all, the most recognizable issue of contemporary American feminism is the issue of abortion. Feminists know where they stand. They believe women must have control of their bodies in order to maintain independence in a society that would otherwise strip them of their choices. \nBut why not have some feminist pro-lifers? The abortion debate need not constitute the core of feminist ideology. The core of feminism, simply put, is equality.\nFeminists for Life, however, does not include equality in its description of core feminist values. \nVague definitions of feminism allow the group to reconcile its pro-life stance with the movement without explaining how the absence of abortions is supposed to contribute to gender equality. Instead, the members cite historical precedents for their beliefs in the ideas of 19th century feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Susan B. Anthony. According to Feminists for Life, these early feminists were all “overwhelmingly pro-life.” \nThere are two major problems with this. First, calling Alice Paul or any other feminists pro-lifers is a misnomer. “Pro-life” and “pro-choice” are vocabulary words from our modern political lexicon. They cannot be applied to people outside the context of today’s abortion debate. Second, the crux of the argument – that feminists should be pro-life because some other feminists were pro-life – is a basic logical fallacy. It’s an argument from authority: Just because some important people did something doesn’t make it right. The reconciliation of a pro-life philosophy with feminism via Feminists for Life rests with the common conflation of “celebrating womanhood” with feminism. The group believes in eradicating the causes of abortion through “holistic, woman-based solutions.” They also call themselves “pro-woman.” Thus, their philosophy is not feminism, but a vague endorsement of all things concerning women.\nFeminism has come to embrace such a plethora of issues that a simplistic concentration on women is almost necessary for digestion. What feminism needs is some ideological spring cleaning. Unfortunately, America’s most important feminist groups advocate a dizzying array of issues: reproductive rights, labor issues, race issues, global health, gay marriage, liberation of Afghan women – no injustice escapes the shrewd feminist’s eye. Feminism was originally a movement dedicated to equality and has now moved toward deconstructing ideas of gender. It should stick to these categories. \nIf feminism continues to branch out into the abyss of the world’s many injustices, it will only suffer more misunderstanding, subversion and, eventually, collapse.