Baumgardner is aiming to answer a question I’ve asked myself: can you be a feminist and be pro-life? I think she sufficiently answers the question; of course, more information, strategies, and fleshing-out of her ideas would always be useful, but she definitely provides a good starting point.
The broader question, however, still resonates with me, and I find myself asking it frequently in class: can you be a feminist and be ______? Essentially, do I have to adopt all the political stances (as much as they can be generalized – if at all) of the feminist movement in order to call myself a feminist?
When reading Valenti’s The Purity Myth, I frequently thing, “can you be pro-abstinence and be a feminist?” (That is, not pro-abstinence only education, but rather pro-abstinence as believing that abstinence is a healthy choice (or even the healthiest choice) for young people).
I continually find myself saying that yes, I believe, in fact, you can be. In the same way that some men approaching feminism often wonder, can I be male and be a feminist? I think it’s important to recognize that, like all political movements, feminism is an extremely broad movement based on some core principles (e.g. that patriarchy has traditionally marginalized women and other minorities (people of color, the disabled, etc) and that feminism requires us to reconsider how patriarchy has shaped our perceptions of the world and to work toward greater equality – not just for women, but for everyone).
So, if feminism is diverse as a movement (encompassing everyone from radical to socialist to post-modern to environmental), then surely the feminists themselves are equally as diverse.
It’s inescapable that your lived experiences will have shaped your perspective. I appreciate that Baumgardner acknowledges that: “Given how reproductive decisions occur within a social framework of so many other personal values, such as one’s religion or family culture or self-image, it might seem difficult to actually lay out pro-life strategies that are genuine and don’t conflict with women’s freedom.” And she’s right – given the diversity of feminists, it’s difficult to lay out strategies in almost every case in a way that will work for the wide range of feminists that want to act on an issue.
But, as Baumgardner emulates, it’s possible. Perhaps more than that, it’s needed. I feel this acutely, and here’s why.
Full disclosure: I am a Christian. I have been raised in the church, I attended a Christian school, and I am actively involved in my church community. But here’s the thing: in the same way that there are so many brands of feminism (and not all are the man-hating, bra-burning, lesbian types), there are so many brands of Christianity (and not all are the super-conservative, gay-bashing, judgemental evangelical variety – a variety of which I, for the record, am not). And so reading about the marginalization that the women Baumgardner meets have experienced (e.g. having to wade through protesters to get to a clinic) is painful for me – as a friend once said, why are Christians protesting outside the front doors of the clinic, instead of waiting outside the back door to give comfort and support to the women who emerge post-procedure?
I feel like people who have traditionally been viewed as in opposition to feminism (e.g. Christians – seen that way, perhaps, because of the unfortunate but incredibly powerful misrepresentation of the entire faith by a powerful American few) need to really step up. There are feminists in the ranks of faiths around the world (and most importantly within faiths that have traditionally been viewed as built on and functioning through patriarchy) who are fighting for women’s rights both within those religions and their structures, and in the wider global context.
Their views are valid – my views are valid. This isn’t to say anyone has ever said they weren’t – but the ability of some scholars, feminists, bloggers, media commentators etc. to write off entire groups (like Christians) as anti-feminist doesn’t leave room for people like me – people who are pro-choice and feminist. A quick Google search for “feminist Christians” yields more than 25 million results. And without wading into the academic research on the topic or commenting on “how feminist” some of these perspectives really are, I think it says something about women who don’t fit into the feminist mould (perhaps a relic of second-wave feminism and/or a stereotype that continues to function, despite boatloads of evidence to the contrary). I think it says that despite the incredibly anti-feminist views of some Christians, Christians (and Christian women in particular) have something to add to the debate – something that may not necessarily be conventionally feminist (and may run against the pro-choice grain), but something valuable all the same.
When I read the entirety of the Baumgardner chapters assigned, I must admit I felt relief when I arrived at chapter 4. Baumgardner is focusing on women’s experiences in every sense – and this naturally includes women on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy. Baumgardner follows through on pro-voice right in her book when she addresses pro-life feminists. Her promotion of pro-voice is about breaking down that dichotomy to understand all women as having something important to contribute to the discussion, and that discussion is perhaps the most important tool we have when it comes to understanding the tough issues that feminism confronts.
I’m a feminist. I’m a Christian. What feminism has to offer women is a framework in which they can express their perspectives, feelings and opinions are their own – as conclusions they have reached without the assistance of men, as a result of their own agency, their own thought processes and their own lived experiences. In this kind of feminism, there is room for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment