Feminists Don’t Have to Be Pro-Choice

If there’s one thing that the doomed selection of Sarah Palin has proved, it’s that feminism has become abortionism – both to most anti-feminists and to many feminists as well.

What was the most common criticism of Palin, after the chuckling over her multiple, shall we say, faux pas? Something along these lines: She’s not a feminist because “she wants to take away a woman’s right to choose while banning sex education in schools, so that essentially the only choice left for a girl is to become an uneducated teenage mother” (Bi-College News).

Come on now. Susan B. Anthony couldn’t get a legal abortion and certainly never had sex-ed, yet somehow she managed to do OK-ish.

The real problem is deeper than this one hyperbole, however; over and over, in the past weeks, the response to the idea that Palin is a feminist has been “she can’t be because she’s against a woman’s right to choose!”

Let’s be clear: Palin is hardly a feminist role model; only smart women get to be feminist role models. But this insistence that one be pro-choice to be feminist stems from a fundamental ignorance of basic ethical philosophy.

Pro-lifers are all, whether they know it or not, members of the deontological school of ethical thought, that is, they don’t take the consequences of their decisions into account. This is not an insult; all it means is that, if a woman’s life is hard hit financially or emotionally by having a baby, a pro-lifer may (or may not) feel badly about that, but the consequences to the woman don’t alter their decision. The idea here is that you should do what’s right come hell or high water. In most contexts, this is undisputably noble: Antigone insisting that she bury her brother even though she knows she will be sentenced to death for it, for example.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, are utilitarians. Utilitarians think that you can’t possibly judge whether a deed is good or not without looking at all of its ramifications. Pro-choicers judge the ramifications of legalized abortion to be better than the ramifications of abortion being illegal.

For too long, people who argue about abortion have treated it like it’s a special case, a debate unto itself. It’s not. It’s one more example of a fundamental (and pretty tangled, the more you look into it) philosophical problem.

NF is solidly pro-choice. But NF also recognizes that a problem in philosophy that has attracted minds like Kant, Bentham, and R.M. Hare is not one with a definitive answer. Nobody, therefore, should treat those who disagree with them on this with hatred, as long as the disagreement is an intellectual one (raving loonies don’t count). And no feminist is required to be a utilitarian; therefore, no feminist is required to be pro-choice.

“Ease Up on Palin”? Why?

New Feminist‘s comment on this thread wasn’t seen fit to be posted, but we’ll say what we have to say anyway:

Palin was not a good choice because the cost of energizing the Republican ticket was alienating moderates – an inevitable problem, it’s true, and one that has little to do with Palin per se. A moderate choice wouldn’t have energized the Republican base, and had Lieberman been on the ticket, McCain would still have lost and the veep pick would still be getting part of the blame for that loss. So on that head, Palin is not to blame.

Nor is she stupid, but quite savvy; she is, however, willfully ignorant (who doesn’t know at least the name of at least one goddamn news source?)

Nobody demonized her; she hurt herself. Quit trying to protect the pretty lady and act like her ignorant comments wouldn’t have been any big deal until the media started … what? Twisting her words? Making stuff up? Hell, SNL’s parodies didn’t even have to change her words to be funny. It’s called reporting, people. Journalism majors, take note. Conservatives, stop bitching about the Mega Industrial Media Complex – you sound like liberals.

And finally, critiquing Palin’s effect on the ticket is not “making fun.” No dogs need be called off, because none were set. In any case, Palin is a hunter – she should be able to handle a little hunting.

The Burden of Knowledge

Does someone want to talk to you about how Sarah Palin is a feminist Role Model who just doesn’t fit feminist stereotypes?

Does someone want to whine about the massive sexism they thinks undermines boys’ achievement (it couldn’t possibly be macho ideals)?

Does someone want to carp at studying women’s literature and history?

Tell them that the burden of proof has been replaced with a burden of knowledge, and that burden’s on THEM.

Ask them to give some indication that they’re familiar with the word “feminist” beyond FOX and National Review’s pablumized vestigial memory of two things they read once about Betty Friedan.

See if they can name three feminist thinkers. That’s all, just three.

See if they can name two schools of feminist thought. That’s all, just two.

And then after the silence, tell them to shut the fuck up.

Palin’s Wardrobe

The Huffington Post, of all places, has come out with a defense of Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe and $22,000 in makeup expenses. Their argument is, essentially, that women will be judged by sexist standards so the RNC totally had to spend almost $2K to get their veep to look okay.

What a load of malarkey. Yes, women face double standards, but that standard has less to do with wardrobe than people think. Those snide remarks about Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were not just about her pantsuits; they were also coded remarks about her thighs. This is not unusual. Criticisms of women’s clothes are often really criticisms of women’s bodies. Sarah Palin’s body is titillating enough to enough men that, as long as her clothes reveal that body sufficiently, it doesn’t much matter where the taffeta suit is from.

Second of all, has no one at the RNC heard of knock-offs? And could not Ms. Palin somehow make do with, say, four or five suits, rather than the plethora of outfits she has? And how does one spend $22,000 on makeup? Does she have a makeup professional traveling with her, applying makeup before she appears at rallies to her fan base with their chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” The fans are the ones who would judge her by a double standard so harsh that if she spent any less on her looks, they would spit on her and vote for Obama the Muslim? Puhhhhhhhhhh-leeeeeeeeeease. –Then again, maybe they would; and the fact that the RNC tacitly acknowledges that and plays into it, showcases exactly how “feminist” they are.

Nope – no excuses. All that happened here is that a wannabe richy who installed a $30,000 tanning bed in her offices got a free $175,000 wardrobe, given her by a bunch of people who don’t even understand what a lot of money that is, and don’t care, and just want the hot chick to look hot, because that’s all they picked her for.

Full-Flavored Mavericks!

So round, so smooth, so fully packed! So quick and easy on the draw!

And best of all – that milder, smoother tobacco never leaves an aftertaste! They’re good for you!

McCain Feels Sorry for Biden

There’s a headline for you, courtesy FOX News.

A belated moment of compassion, you think, for Biden’s sorrow over the death of his first wife and their daughter? The Grand Old Man showing the spunky youngster that we can be noble in defeat and show compassion for a fellow American?

No.

“You know, I almost felt a little sorry last night for my old friend Joe Biden,” McCain said; “she did a magnificent job and she is the news for the big spending, smooth talking, me first, country second crowd in Washington and Wall Street that we have got a message.”

Did you notice that “almost”? There’s no compassion here, only crowing triumph.

Indeed, Palin did deliver a message: a message of relentless self-centeredness. She had memorized her talking points and she memorized them thoroughly and well; she delivered them spiritedly. But when the man next to her lost control briefly, she had an opportunity to be so much more than a great speaker: she had the opportunity to show a heart, to be her own shining city on a hill, — to express some gentleness, however briefly.

And she didn’t even blink. “Back to me….”

To expect gentleness from a woman candidate is not sexist. Both men and women should have some class. McCain and Palin both showed that, despite the pretty music they can make, when the lip-sync machine is off, they are tone-deaf.

A Hug for Joe

Losing your wife and kids is inimaginably hard. I want to give Joe a hug.

On the debate: Palin did well. She was confident and assertive and had a clear ideology. She looked at the camera directly and was folksy about herself.

Biden was more hesitant. He didn’t have soundbites. He wasn’t folksy about himself, he was just human and sad when he talked about his family.

What will swing voters care about more?

The Mavericks!

FOX News is wet with delight and triumph. After some digging, they’ve found video of Sarah Palin talking coherently about a Supreme Court decision.

So why didn’t Palin talk like this when questioned by Katie Couric? Either Palin just can’t handle pressure, like, at all, or she chose not say anything about the Exxon decision. Why? Almost certainly, Top Maverick and his Team told her not to because they didn’t want Bottom Maverick suggesting that big oil companies should pay big penalties.

McCain is screwing over his own running mate, forbidding her to use the knowledge that she has and helping to make her a laughing-stock for the rest of her life. Mavericky.

“Why aren’t people targeting Joe Biden?!”

“He said FDR was on TV! He said he was shot at! Not criticizing him is sexist and unfair to Sarah Palin!”

1. No, it’s not. HER words are HER responsibility. The “he did it too!” school of defense is – well, second-grade.
2. Biden’s being “shot at” is not much of a news story in a year when Hillary Clinton made the same gaffe, but a) first and b) much more spectacularly. People don’t like to read the same basic story they’ve already heard about a gajillion times. Sorry.
3. At least Biden has heard of FDR. He’s also heard of a lot more than that, like Supreme Court cases. Palin’s not getting flak for mixing her facts up; she’s getting flak for not knowing any facts to mix up.

The Sarah-Cuda

A western Ohio manufacturer is offering a custom-designed hunting bow inspired by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Lakota Industries Inc. announced its “Sarah-Cuda” bow Wednesday in honor of the Alaska governor’s “lifelong passion for the sport of hunting.”

The pink camouflage bow weighs 3.4 pounds and is designed to accommodate female hunters and archers. It retails for $590.

Lakota chief executive Dick Williamson said the bow also pays tribute to women who “bear the responsibility of family and work while strengthening the moral fiber of society.”

The company will donate 10 percent of Sarah-Cuda proceeds to the National Association for Down Syndrome. Palin, 44, is a mother of five who gave birth earlier this year to a son with the genetic condition.

–Yahoo News

It’s tempting to make fun of this, but New Feminist actually likes the idea. Archery is cool, and as marketing to women goes, NF will take a bow-and-arrows over Barbies any day. Too bad this poor company probably won’t sell many.

To the idea that hunting and feminism are antithetical, NF says pish-tosh. Feminism is about removing inequality between men and women, in thought, word, and deed, not about making the world perfectly-perfect. If archery is marketed equally to men and women, feminism should be satisfied, even if morality is not. (The pinkness of the bow, however, can be fairly criticized on feminist grounds.)

In other news, the season premiere of Tim Gunn’s Guide to Style has been pushed from its normal time of 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. tonight, to accommodate those who would otherwise have chosen to watch the vice-presidential debate instead of Mr. Gunn. It can only be a good thing when segments of the population ordinarily more interested in clothes than politics start being more interested in politics than clothes.