American Life League on Feministing Community
It seems the American Life League has discovered the Feministing Community site and, shockingly, isn't a fan. (Granted, this post was a controversial one - but hey, that's what community discourse is about!)
Thanks to evilslutopia for the heads up!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: American Life League on Feministing Community.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11451
Here's my favorite bit:
"I believe she is using "reproduction" to replace the commonly known term, marital relations. At least that is what I am assuming. Far be it from me, of course, to put words into this female's mouth!"
Because why call something by its proper name, when we can use a euphemism that places a shitton of social restrictions on it?
Y helo thar, confirmation bias!
They ignore an entire site full of moderate, thoughtful, reasonable posts and pick out the extreme one. Then they ignore all the dissenting comments.
Bravo, ALL, you've discovered that the Internet has radicals and sometimes their opinions get attention! You'd think their own site would have taught them this long ago.
"Controversial"? "Community discourse"? Really, Jessica...there's such a thing as too much tolerance for an opinion. (I also have a hard time believing that you'd have handled the post with such kid gloves if the same opinion had been expressed by a man.)
It was extreme, authoritarian, (possibly even downright CRAZY once you get into all that "need to eliminate the human race" stuff)and insulting to any women who are or want to be mothers. If you tolerate something like that on this site, much less celebrate it, you're just giving the other side fuel.
The opinion was expressed by a man.
Knee-jerk criticism fail.
Oy. Indeed. Apologies. I was looking at comments *here* about it being a woman.
But regardless of whether or not we all agree with what was said, the right to express one's opinion is one that I believe we still have...
"But regardless of whether or not we all agree with what was said, the right to express one's opinion is one that I believe we still have..."
Freedom of speech is necessary for a free society, but all it means is that government will not kill, hurt, imprison, or otherwise interfere with your liberty, or allow others to do these things, because of something you said.
It certainly does NOT mean that someone like Jessica and Feministing needs to give a platform to and even praise intolerant, authoritarian, extreme, and possibly even CRAZY ideas or risk being accused of somehow interferring with the "right to express one's opinion." This is one of the most ridiculous and damaging fallacies I've ever seen infect liberal circles.
Well, the idea behind free speech is that it provides an environment where there can be responses to that speech (such as the dissenting comments left on the post at issue), and between the original speech and the responses, we'll be able to see what's really desireable/correct/proper/etc. It's not so much the original speech that's valued under free speech, but the back and forth dialogue that results from it.
I think it's pretty obvious from the comments on both posts freethinkr left that as crazy and intolerant as his ideas are, that they're generally not ideas that are being accepted as "good" ideas.
I usually find the conversation in the comments far more valuable than any of the original posts on this website.
What you feel to understand is that MY freedom of speech and expression means that I don't bloody well have to give a platform to ideas that I find repulsive and thus, I shouldn't be surprised if my failure to publicly criticize or remove those ideas from a publication that I control is interpreted as a certain degree of support for those ideas. Such is the case with this post and Jessica, and I'm dissapointed in her.
We don't have any problem grasping this concept when it comes to certain established taboo ideas - I doubt any of us would be crying "respect free speech!" if Jessica had responded to a blatantly racist, misogynist, anti-gay, etc. post by calling it "controversial" and praising its place in community discourse - we'd be pretty upset. But somehow, we don't respect the right of someone to point to something and say "that's wrong and I don't tolerate it," unless the "wrong" thing has been very clearly sanctioned as "wrong" by popular opinion. If an intolerant idea is new and original enough to not have had a social movement about it, we somehow think we have to coddle it rather than cry "bullshit."
I cry "bullshit."
You can be as "disappointed" with me as you like. But we created the Community site as a forum for feminist thought - even if that thought is radical, even if people (including myself) disagree with it.
Are you saying, then, that there's no point at which you will draw the line?
But if it's not written by a troll (as most of the "blatantly racist, misogynist, anti-gay, etc." comments on this site are), and it's relevant (related to feminism) and is intended to provoke discussion (unlike troll comments, which are only intended to provide the troll with some shits and giggles), why does a line need to be drawn? I don't know if you've read much radical feminist theory, but it CAN be pretty intolerant. All men are rapists, all sex is rape, let's just give the power to women as Catherine MacKinnon suggested?
Saying it's part of community discourse isn't a thumbs up or thumbs down to the actual ideas the post contains. Most people were calling "bullshit" in the comments section, I don't really know where the "coddling" is that you keep talking about.
If you want to know our community guidelines you can read them here.
Okay, so authoritarian, prescriptive opinions about what women should and shouldn't do with their bodies are a-ok, but I say I don't like what I perceive as overmuch tolerance for such attitudes, and I get obtuse, passive-agressive responses. I really didn't think "I'm dissapointed" was going to provoke such defensiveness.
Call me dissapointed again.
I have been happily married to a feminist male for years... insofar as we have no plans for the moment on children, for me "marital relations" and "reproduction" are NOT two words with the same definition. I suppose sometimes I forget that my place is to be an incubator made out of muscles and blood. HA.
or me "marital relations" and "reproduction" are NOT two words with the same definition.
Hear, hear! I get so angry whenever I hear bigots guise their personal and often religious objections to gay marriage and thus civil equality by claiming that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, which can only naturally occur between a man and a woman. Issues of adoptive parents aside, my husband and I have no immediate or future plans to have children -- is our marriage somehow less valid for it?
I really enjoy the proposed "solution" for those nasty, damaged-goods feminists:
"The next time you meet someone who claims to be disenchanted with family, engage them in a conversation and maybe even give them a hug!
Somebody really needs to give "freethinkr" a hug."
I don't know about you all, but the paucity of hugs in my life is DEFINITELY why I'm a feminist.
Because we just LOVE being touched by strangers, ya know?
reproduction:
1: the act or process of reproducing ; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
marital relations:
amazingly, this wasn't in the dictionary. However, adding "legal definition" to the search terms brought up several legal papers and cases, all of which clearly indicate it is used to mean sex between married people.
Dunno about you, but I've never had a problem telling the two apart. But then, the radical conservatives aren't known for their love of referring to Webster's or the OED.
All dictionaries have a liberal bias.
I don't even know what to say to that comment it is just that ridiculous.
Um...it was sarcasm.
Well thank goodness because honestly it didn't read that way to me and it scared me that you might be unhinged.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
AMAZING. Points to you for that response. I had a good chortle.
AMAZING. Points to you for that response. I had a good chortle.
I get really sick of the idea that being a feminist somehow means I'm supposed to be sickened by the idea of reproducing, babies in general, etc. I actually find this to be rather a patriarchal idea stemming from the idea of men feeling entitled to sex without being required to deal with the consequences of childbirth.
"Hey! I'm pregnant! You going to help me raise our kid?"
"You shouldn't have had a kid. What an unenlightened woman you are, don't be a slave to the patriarchal requirement of childbirth!"
I think being a feminist means you are supposed to be sickened by how society holds you hostage via your uterus. Criticism of social paradigms != criticism of individual women.
Duh.
I don't need to have this explained to me. But people need to realize that there is a tendency for people to not realize that FREEDOM is ultimately what we're trying to preserve. It's not a matter of moving from one prescriptive, required behavior to its polar opposite prescriptive, required behavior, and we tend to respond with too little tolerance when someone is proposing precisely this.
It's like people who respond with anger towards Christian authoritarianism but can't recognize the potential problem presented by those who want to institute authoritarian atheism.
I get really sick of the idea that being a feminist somehow means I'm supposed to be sickened by men.
Oh, wait, it's not? You mean we're railing against how society dictates our gender roles, which leads to injustices, not by men themselves? Well, damn, there goes my strawman argument.
Honestly laurel gardner I don't think you understand feminism much at all. It's about CHOICE. If you want to choose to be a wife and mother than more power to you. If you want to choose to be and wife and mother and yet still work outside the home then great! If you want to just be a wife with no kids, that's also fine. Hey, you don't even have to be a wife. These are all viable options just as long as they are your CHOICE.
Please stop beating up that poor strawman and read my post again. Did I ever say that I think all feminists are trying to make me hate childbirth? No. I didn't even say that I think this idea is necessarily born of any feminist circles. Unfortunately, some feminists have bought into this idea, AS THE LINKED POST CLEARLY INDICATES.
But laurel you seem to be implying that this website is saying that you cannot want kids and a family and it has never implied that feminism states that good feminists have no children and hate marriage or anything of that nature. Yes, that post is different, but as has been pointed out, it was written by someone on the community site. Those were their specific views and many of the community disagreed with them. Now if you're angry about their views (which you have every right to be) you can comment on that thread and tell them about it. That's what many others did (and maybe you did comment too, I didn't check). But you seem to be getting angry at the wrong people here.
I wish I knew what it was I said that "seems to be implying" that I credit Feministing with this attitude. On the contrary, I find Feministing to be very good about respecting AND defending diversity in life choices for women, which is why I am, as I said, dissapointed that the strongest thing Jessica is willing to say about this post is that it's "controversial." I can't help but wonder if she'd have stronger things to say about the opinions expressed therein if she'd found them off-site.
Correction: Some feminisms are about choice. Some feminisms are about applauding the "choices" of all women, without examining what forces are behind those choices or the effects of those choices on others. Some feminisms are about the choices of some women, but not others, such as the choice of wealthy women to work outside the home, but not the choice of poor women to stay home. Some feminisms are about certain choices, such as the choice to be a mother or to be a sex worker, but not others, such as the choice to be a multiple wife of a religious patriarch.
And some feminisms aren't about choice at all. They're about analyzing the effects of patriarchy and the status of women and other oppressed classes, including such sacred ideals as "motherhood" and "family".
I think Feminism as a whole is about women being able to choose their own path in life. Yes of course you must analyze why you're choosing one path over another because we still live in a patriarchy so that has certain effects that we must take into consideration. It would be irresponsible to just cheer on one's choices without looking at them on a deeper level. I wasn't saying that.
What I most took issue with in your post was the idea that there is a single movement called Feminism and that it's about women's choices. That is why I pointedly used plural voice to refer to feminisms. The most popular and mainstream feminism is, in fact, all about women's choices. Other feminisms are about other things.
we still live in a patriarchy so that has certain effects that we must take into consideration
I'm going to translate this into how I think for the edification of any interested readers. "Yes, we still have an atmosphere of nearly 100% oxygen, so that has certain effects that we must take into consideration when lighting matches." Patriarchy and other inequitable power structures are a much bigger deal than can be shrugged off with "certain effects".
It seems like you're trying to make my comment seem insinsere, like I was trying to sweep something under the rug which I find really upsetting and rather rude to be honest. I didn't really feel like writing a whole essay on the effects of the patriarchy when I was simply responding to laurel gardner's post.
I said what I thought Feminism was: as in what it means to me. And I happen to think that it does mean that to a good number of people. I never thought stating that I felt that feminism (MY FEMINISM) was about choice would be met with such negativity.
I don't think you were insincere at all and I'm not trying to make a personal statement about you. Choice-centered feminism, in my opinion, does sweep things under the rug, hence, those advocating it are sweeping important things under the rug (awfully large rug), but I don't ascribe malicious intent to you or anyone else who adhere to that type of feminism. I apologize if I wrote something that could be construed as personal. I'm not going to defang my ideas to keep from hurting other people's feelings.
I didn't read either article in detail, but one thing seems clear: if that website doesn't like you, you must be doing something right.
Keep up the good work.
One of the things that I thought was the most interesting thing about the article is the fact that homes for unmarried mothers are still around and considered a positive. I think that that is pretty sick.
considering the American Life League's reaction to Krispy Kreme's abortion doughnuts, it would have been hella awesome to see their aneurisms in action after reading that community post.
Did you notice the first comment was from someone saying they are friends of the Krispy Kreme CEO, who is pro-life, and is begging ALL to call off the "friendly fire" attack over the abortion donuts? That made me laugh.
Her problems understanding this indeed controversial post seem to be similar to mine understanding this sentence: "We both had small children and husbands who occasionally would spring for babysitting duty so that the girls could have a night out."
Culture clash?
And on the "marital relations" thing, isn't that supposed to be sex, not procreation? Though, yeah, my bad. That, of course, is the same. oO
And on the "marital relations" thing, isn't that supposed to be sex, not procreation? Though, yeah, my bad. That, of course, is the same.
That's how I read it -- and that is really sad. I mean, it sounds like a business transaction, an obligation or occupational duty or something, the way they talk about it.
Haha, we're happy to help and this had to be shared. This was our favorite line:
"I guess if you're a disgruntled feminist, then your “feministing” is going to get a little wacky."
Let's do a big group hug so we can all stop being so wacky.
I just want to point out that the way I found "freethinkr"
s original post was through a right-wing blog called stoptheaclu.com (I think it was that one-- there's a "stoptheaclu.org" too).
Like the American Life League article, this blog also gave the impression that the "rejection of reproduction" view expressed by freethinkr is a view that represents feminism as a whole.
I believe freethinkr's views on reproduction miss the mark, and yes, I'll admit, I am frustrated by the fact that s/he gave right wingers a golden opportunity to bash feminism through misrepresentation. It was all too easy for right wing voices to seize upon such a notion and use it to discredit feminism as a whole by making it seem absurd, foolish, angry, and irrational (nothin' new here... been there, done that, heard it all before...).
BUT: this is no reason to silence views such as freethinkr's. I agree with Jessica that the view didn't overstep the bounds of decency, was a sincere effort by the author to present her own analysis and point of view, and so shouldn't have been deleted as some suggested. I also don't think that allowing the post on the discussion board implies assent by the discussion board host. I think extreme views are necessary in order to stretch and challenge all of our thought processes. Besides, how many mainstream views today were once considered extreme, even dangerous?
Okay this is my favorite quote from the ALL article:
"Why else would so many young people be mesmerized by the idea of promiscuous sex while totally disengaged from the art of spelling, completing a math course or graduating with honors?"
Because OBVIOUSLY you can either choose to be smart and successful or else you can choose to have sex. CLEARLY the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
I was a national merit scholar and and ap scholar with distinction and am now an honors student at university. And I am okay with sex outside of marriage, which by their definition likely makes me promiscuous. Ooh, what now?
Hahah Or someone like me, who earned mostly straight A's taking 6 honors/ap courses at a time, took summer school at Yale when she was 15, scored 99th percentile on the SAT and is waiting for an admissions decision from Tufts . . . clearly I'm not having sex at ALL! ;-) I bet if any of the schools were I applied found out that I am not in fact "pure," they will send back my apps with a big fat DENIED!!! Keliz, I like you.
freethinkr's post was actually right. Critiquing reproduction for the drain on women and the environment that it is should be part of feminism's work. That doesn't mean anyone is keeping laurel gardner from procreating as much as she wants. Critiquing is smart. I'm still not clear what was so troubling about the post. It said nothing anti-mother or anti-woman that I could see.
Criticizing a prescriptive, authoritarian idea is good. Switching to another prescriptive, authoritarian idea and calling it "progress" just because it's prescribing the opposite behavior? Not so good. People telling me what to do with my body are people telling me what to do with my body. And yes, I know freethinkr (gods, what an arrogant handle!) doesn't actually have the power to enforce his ideas, but that doesn't mean I have to sit here and go. "Hmmm...good community discourse and thank you for contributing!"
"freethinkr's post was actually right."
Which part did you find so right? The part about how procreating is responsible for basically every evil in the world or the part about how it might actually be a good idea to eradicate humanity?
I still don't understand what you're outraged by, either. I agree (partly) with freethinkr's post. There is already much theory and some research behind his/her ideas (that the patriarchal family unit mirrors and reinforces patriarchal governments, that the patriarchal family has traditionally been used to keep family money in male heirs' hands, that women still do a disproportionate amount of the work in marriages, etc.). Try Gerda Lerner's _The Creation of Patriarchy_. I'll admit I recommend it to everybody. But it addresses these issues of "family" and the ways both reproduction and family have been oppressive throughout history.
I actually had a discussion with a woman professor of mine expressing freethinkr's same reservations. I would rather adopt a child than have one of my own because there truly are so many suffering people on this planet, and I have firsthand experience in my own family with unfit parents and neglected children. But my professor said she thinks it's not quite the same, that there is indeed something special and wonderful about pregnancy. And I think she's probably right. Perhaps the urge will hit me someday, as it's hit many a feminist, including non-hetero ones. It happens. But until then, no babies for me.
Aside from that, I'm a misanthrope and a cynic. What can I say. It sounds like freethinkr may be, as well (though I of course don't mean to speak for him).
(1)sorry for the double post up there -- my browser went a little wonky
(2)HI ALL! I'm a DUDE on a FEMINIST SITE. WEIRD I KNOW! I guess we do exist! HOLY COW MAN!
(3)The anti-choice movement likes to grasp onto whatever it can find and, honestly, though I disagreed with freethinkr and HIS opinion, I was able to discuss that in thread. I thought it was a good topic for discussion overall and it generated a lot of good thought. The mods aren't here to tailor to one specific mold of what they consider feminist, but rather allow us to discuss it together and work out understandings (as I understand the TOS and whatnot). So, GOOD ON YOU JESSICA! Thank you!
Wow. That Life League blog post is so stupid I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to write a long snarky comment.
I love all these pro-lifers building on this rhetoric of caring ("Aww, shucks, we just all need hugs!"), when trying to force a woman to carry a fetus for nine months, then birth it, and apparently just give it away if she can't raise it (because giving your baby away is SO EASY!) is just about the most ignorant, UNCARING thing I can think of.
It creeps me out to think that these people believe they're "caring" about me - or any women - since "caring" to them means forcing women into their warm fuzzy sexist religious conservative norms.
I think ALL might want their bloggers to consider whether it's wise to make statements like, "I know a whole lot of families in the pro-life movement, most of which are very pleased with their state, but are certainly not selfish, wealthy or oppressors of the needy. In fact, quite the contrary is true, as I am sure you would agree, if you are familiar with happy families where there are lots of children and loads of joy" if they plan on lamenting the pervasive "negativity" that leads to all the evils in modern society (you know, divorce, abortion, teenage sex).
And I can't even retcon the argument to mean that only the nice anti-choicers are able to avoid these social ills because, hey, my evil liberal parents are still together after twenty-something years, and there's been plenty of happiness in our family even though I've only got one sibling.
Also, while I don't want a family for myself, it's not because I'm a pessimist but because I'm realistic. I can't stand children and believe that it would be wrong to parent half-heartedly (at best), since kids deserve to be raised in homes where they know that they're loved and wanted.
I don't enjoy children either, but the reason I'm not having them isn't because I don't think it would be fair to them. It's because I don't want them, and therefore it wouldn't be fair to me to live a life completely opposite of everything I stand for and want to do.