" Feminism is about women having intrinsic value as persons rather than contigent value as a means to an end for others: Fetuses, children, the "family," men..." - Katha Pollitt
So I'm not a good feminist because I value being a wife and mother? I thought feminism was about being equal to men, not about cutting out the parts of ourselves that make us female. I find power in the ability to bear children, to love and nurture them. Not in the ability to get rid of them on a whim.
I didn't take the quote as saying that you aren't a good feminist if you value those things, so much as saying that women are not only about their kids, family, or husband, but have value as a person outside of those things.
I still don't get why the pro-choice feminists don't support their youngest females. You know... like the in-utero ones? How come do they get to pick and choose which females have intrisic value?
I didn't take that quote as being against wife and mothers either. Just that you shouldn't value women only because then can be wives and mothers. There IS power in the ability to bear children, and love and nurture them. But that's not the only power women have or should be expected to have. That's what i got out of the quote. As for the abortion, I already know that Kristi and you are against it. I wasn't trying to start a debate about that. I just figured you thought women were persons, whether they used their "ability" to have children or not. And do you think that your ability to bear, love, and nurture children are the only things that give you power? That make you a person? Is that all you're good for? I don't think you think that at all, but that's what it sounded like. What about women who don't have children, because they choose not to - I'm not talking about abortion, but what about those who never get married, or take a vow of celibacy. Are they less as women? And if they don't have children, or a family, does that mean they're not persons of intrinsic value? And I used quotations marks around ability because I don't think that just because you CAN have children, a woman SHOULD have children.
Our youngest females DO have intrinsic value. But I don't agree that a not even implanted fertilized egg is our youngest female. Nor do I believe that a 10 day embryo is our youngest female or even a three month fetus is the youngest female.... I believe that POTENTIAL life both male and female are important, but not MORE important than a woman who has already been born, and has a life (because we define living differently) and may not be able to "bear, love or nurture" a child to the best of her abilities. I think it's her decision to make. I think we've already covered most aspects of why you are against abortion and I'm not, so I figured answering your question would just start off another debate about it, and I didn't really want to do that on this particular blog.
I absolutely agree that women..and men...(i.e. all humans) have intrinsic value. That is, value in and of themselves, just because they exist, rather than for what they can offer. However, that is a trite idealistic view of the world. The fact is, everyone has instric value but their extrinsic value is what people relate to. Whether a womam has a child, devotes herself to a career, lives in a cardboard box and eats with money made playing her guitar, etc, is irrelevant. She is still offering services to those around her (this goes for men too). So the argument is pretty inconsequential.
I dont think I only have value in being a wife and mother, but I think it has value. It's a part of who I am. I cant just cut that part out, it's part of me. It may not be part of someone else, but they should still feel that it is valuable.
And I dont think that a baby has more right to live than a mother, I think it has just as much right. Both are people, and both can feel pain. Just one of them doesnt get to express it.
Of course being a wife and mother has value. I certainly hope no one is arguing otherwise, because a woman choosing that for herself is just as strong as a woman who doesn't. I am much more offended by people who look at parents and children with digust, as if it is somehow beneath them. I mean none of us would exist without mothers (or fathers), and that is probably one of the hardest "jobs" a person can have.
And it may be the trite idealist in me but I also think any person of quality is going to judge the people in her/his life by their intrinsic value. We may put people we encounter day in and day out into whatever stereotypical role they fit, but the people we keep around are going to be ones who we've connected with beyond that.
Raimee, I hope you weren't offended by my use of "trite idealist." I was looking at it from an objective, realist point of view and trying to convey that even though we all have intrinsic value, in general we are important to the world for what we can offer. And I do agree that the people we are closest to probably see us, as we see them, as having value just for existing (definitely more than strangers). But I still feel that even those people see us, in part, for what we can offer. I mean, think of your husband or boyfriend. You love them for many reasons, assumedly, but part of that may be the security they bring, the fact that they kill spiders for you, etc. I'm just saying, it's impossible, at least in my view, to just have intrinsic value. If you just sat and stared at the wall and offered no companionship, no services to the world, etc, you would still have intrinsic value but you wouldn't have much else in the way of value for anyone. Which is why I see this whole conversation as inconsequential. How can we argue that people don't have intrinsic value? We wouldn't get very far. But what good is intrinsic value without all those other things that make us worthwhile to those around us.
Of course, this is all far away from the original post which is that women have value as more than just wives, mothers, etc. Which I definitely agree it. But I think that feminists either portray themselves or get portrayed as being against mothers, wives, etc. Which is why I would never call myself a feminist even though I think I probably agree with many of their principles. Which leads me to my next thought...can men and women ever really be equal? And does equal mean the same thing as "same." Because we'll never be the "same" so how can we ever be "equal." We can enjoy many of the same rights but I'm not sure we can ever be "equal." And I don't necessarily think it's because the men in power are holding us back. I think maybe it's b/c we just aren't the "same" i.e. "equal." So I guess with that question I have just effectively wiped out my previous comment about how I could be called a feminist:) Any comments?
I don't think feminists portray themselves as anti-mother or anti-wife. I think people portray them that way. Feminists are the ones who want safe, public daycare so that mothers can work and don't have to worry about finding affordable babysitters. Feminists are the ones who are advocating healthcare for all women - and that includes contraception, maternal healthcare, prenatal healthcare, and a host of other programs. Feminists are the ones that stand up for stay at home moms, in the form of fighting for divorce laws that make sure that she gets equal value and money despite not having "worked." In the form of fighting to make sure that women can choose to be a stay-at home mom; they want women to earn as much on the same job as a man -to support their families and themselves. They support maternity leaves for both men and women (ok, paternity leaves). Feminist isn't a bad word. It's not something people should shy away from because others portray them as something other than what they are. If you think you agree with most of the things feminists stand for, call yourself a feminist and explain why - then people can't portray you as anti-mother, anti-child, anti-family, anti-woman.
13 comments:
So I'm not a good feminist because I value being a wife and mother? I thought feminism was about being equal to men, not about cutting out the parts of ourselves that make us female. I find power in the ability to bear children, to love and nurture them. Not in the ability to get rid of them on a whim.
I didn't take the quote as saying that you aren't a good feminist if you value those things, so much as saying that women are not only about their kids, family, or husband, but have value as a person outside of those things.
I still don't get why the pro-choice feminists don't support their youngest females. You know... like the in-utero ones? How come do they get to pick and choose which females have intrisic value?
I didn't take that quote as being against wife and mothers either. Just that you shouldn't value women only because then can be wives and mothers. There IS power in the ability to bear children, and love and nurture them. But that's not the only power women have or should be expected to have. That's what i got out of the quote. As for the abortion, I already know that Kristi and you are against it. I wasn't trying to start a debate about that. I just figured you thought women were persons, whether they used their "ability" to have children or not. And do you think that your ability to bear, love, and nurture children are the only things that give you power? That make you a person? Is that all you're good for? I don't think you think that at all, but that's what it sounded like. What about women who don't have children, because they choose not to - I'm not talking about abortion, but what about those who never get married, or take a vow of celibacy. Are they less as women? And if they don't have children, or a family, does that mean they're not persons of intrinsic value? And I used quotations marks around ability because I don't think that just because you CAN have children, a woman SHOULD have children.
I don't recall arguing against anything you said in your comment in my previous comment. I said "Why don't our youngest females have intrisic value?"
Simple question... and yet... you seem to have no simple answer.
Our youngest females DO have intrinsic value. But I don't agree that a not even implanted fertilized egg is our youngest female. Nor do I believe that a 10 day embryo is our youngest female or even a three month fetus is the youngest female.... I believe that POTENTIAL life both male and female are important, but not MORE important than a woman who has already been born, and has a life (because we define living differently) and may not be able to "bear, love or nurture" a child to the best of her abilities. I think it's her decision to make. I think we've already covered most aspects of why you are against abortion and I'm not, so I figured answering your question would just start off another debate about it, and I didn't really want to do that on this particular blog.
I absolutely agree that women..and men...(i.e. all humans) have intrinsic value. That is, value in and of themselves, just because they exist, rather than for what they can offer. However, that is a trite idealistic view of the world. The fact is, everyone has instric value but their extrinsic value is what people relate to. Whether a womam has a child, devotes herself to a career, lives in a cardboard box and eats with money made playing her guitar, etc, is irrelevant. She is still offering services to those around her (this goes for men too). So the argument is pretty inconsequential.
I dont think I only have value in being a wife and mother, but I think it has value. It's a part of who I am. I cant just cut that part out, it's part of me. It may not be part of someone else, but they should still feel that it is valuable.
And I dont think that a baby has more right to live than a mother, I think it has just as much right. Both are people, and both can feel pain. Just one of them doesnt get to express it.
Of course being a wife and mother has value. I certainly hope no one is arguing otherwise, because a woman choosing that for herself is just as strong as a woman who doesn't. I am much more offended by people who look at parents and children with digust, as if it is somehow beneath them. I mean none of us would exist without mothers (or fathers), and that is probably one of the hardest "jobs" a person can have.
And it may be the trite idealist in me but I also think any person of quality is going to judge the people in her/his life by their intrinsic value. We may put people we encounter day in and day out into whatever stereotypical role they fit, but the people we keep around are going to be ones who we've connected with beyond that.
Raimee, I hope you weren't offended by my use of "trite idealist." I was looking at it from an objective, realist point of view and trying to convey that even though we all have intrinsic value, in general we are important to the world for what we can offer. And I do agree that the people we are closest to probably see us, as we see them, as having value just for existing (definitely more than strangers). But I still feel that even those people see us, in part, for what we can offer. I mean, think of your husband or boyfriend. You love them for many reasons, assumedly, but part of that may be the security they bring, the fact that they kill spiders for you, etc. I'm just saying, it's impossible, at least in my view, to just have intrinsic value. If you just sat and stared at the wall and offered no companionship, no services to the world, etc, you would still have intrinsic value but you wouldn't have much else in the way of value for anyone. Which is why I see this whole conversation as inconsequential. How can we argue that people don't have intrinsic value? We wouldn't get very far. But what good is intrinsic value without all those other things that make us worthwhile to those around us.
Of course, this is all far away from the original post which is that women have value as more than just wives, mothers, etc. Which I definitely agree it. But I think that feminists either portray themselves or get portrayed as being against mothers, wives, etc. Which is why I would never call myself a feminist even though I think I probably agree with many of their principles. Which leads me to my next thought...can men and women ever really be equal? And does equal mean the same thing as "same." Because we'll never be the "same" so how can we ever be "equal." We can enjoy many of the same rights but I'm not sure we can ever be "equal." And I don't necessarily think it's because the men in power are holding us back. I think maybe it's b/c we just aren't the "same" i.e. "equal." So I guess with that question I have just effectively wiped out my previous comment about how I could be called a feminist:) Any comments?
I don't think feminists portray themselves as anti-mother or anti-wife. I think people portray them that way. Feminists are the ones who want safe, public daycare so that mothers can work and don't have to worry about finding affordable babysitters. Feminists are the ones who are advocating healthcare for all women - and that includes contraception, maternal healthcare, prenatal healthcare, and a host of other programs. Feminists are the ones that stand up for stay at home moms, in the form of fighting for divorce laws that make sure that she gets equal value and money despite not having "worked." In the form of fighting to make sure that women can choose to be a stay-at home mom; they want women to earn as much on the same job as a man -to support their families and themselves. They support maternity leaves for both men and women (ok, paternity leaves). Feminist isn't a bad word. It's not something people should shy away from because others portray them as something other than what they are. If you think you agree with most of the things feminists stand for, call yourself a feminist and explain why - then people can't portray you as anti-mother, anti-child, anti-family, anti-woman.
I had something else to add, but then I read more posts and forgot what it was. Oh well. :-)
Post a Comment