Feminists Are Angry.....

So, I guess that many of these feminist woman are not believers in Sarah Palin. No problem, they would never vote for a Republican anyway since they have this 'thing' about the GOP. So, I read today's piece by uber-feminists Gloria Steinem. Please have a look at these 2 little passages....

Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president.

and....

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom.

There is nothing like being a one issue voter. But how can these right-wing ideologues that have a 'headlock' on the GOP both be anti-woman (m she says feminist)and appeased by Sarah Palin? Do feminists like Gloria Steinem represent all women or a just a portion of the population of women? Because in Steinem's opinion, Palin doesn't believe the exact dogma of the 'feminists' does this make her less of a woman? No. Since she doesn't embrace what Gloria Steinem values, does this mean that Palin doesn't support women? Well, we will see what woman voters think about that. Isn't that what voting for elected officials is all about? Is Palin anti-woman or does she embrace her life as a female as does this the way that she feels fit? I do not think that Palin is some doormat that does or believes what she is told to believe. This is what is so frightening to the Gloria Steinem's of the world. That someone can come to a different conclusion despite having the same chromosomes.

And what about this reproductive freedom? I looked at the Constitution today, and even in the amendments, there was no mention of reproductive freedom.

I like having this debate. Is Sarah Palin against reproductive freedom? I suppose that that from a Clintonesque perspective depends how you define reproductive freedom. In my humble opinion, reproductive freedom means for a society that has values are not absolute. Woman (and men) should choose to have children, how many to have and to make a life together as a family. Neither the man nor the woman have a superior right in this relationship. But what I think that Palin is for is responsibility and a belief that the unborn have some kind of rights.

So, lets consider this, rights as considered by philosophers over the ages are not unlimited nor absolute. In this case, one's rights do not extend in territory where they would harm others except in situations such as self-defense. In order to accept that unfettered access to abortion is an issue of a right, then one has to define the unborn as not being human, otherwise, it is murder. However, if left to natures course, most of the unborn become humans. Here is where I have a problem with the whole debate; I think that the courts have found, as a matter of convenience, that abortion is allowable during the first trimester except in cases of rape or serious medical problems with the mother. What is the objective reasoning for this? Some have argued that a baby can become viable outside of the womb at around 22 weeks, and this makes sense as a cut-off point for abortions. Yes, but a fetus inside of 22 weeks is viable (as a human) if it remains in the womb. What does this period suggest? I think that it is just convenience. A baby is not viable even after birth unless it is cared for and fed. Staying in the womb is the proper care for the unborn just like the proper care of a child is expected after birth.

So, I am not a believer in Steinem's reproductive rights argument. Also, I am not a believer that any reproductive decision is solely a woman's to make. By removing men from the decision, you also allow them to extract themselves from responsibility. I think that this has consequences that effect communities, people and families far beyond the narrow discussion surrounding abortions. By removing men from the equation, traditional responsibilities of men are diminished. Men without portfolio, in my opinion, lose their societal bearing and andd their won sense of self worth. And this has consequences to reach beyond the simple reporductive rights argument.