Anti-Choice Feminists Compare Today’s Feminism to Girls Gone Wild. Confused? Me too.

Standard

In case you did not know, I consider myself a feminist — yes, that big ol’ scary f-word. Don’t like that word? Well, I have a synonym for you: human rights activist. Don’t catch my drift? Check out my first blog post describing why I am writing this blog to begin with, then join me back here for what I hope to be an enlightening conversation about the current hoop-lah about those damn feminists.

Lila Rose, a prominent anti-choice activist who proclaims to have penned the term “anti-choice feminist,” wrote an article in Politico arguing that the anti-choice feminist voice has been missing from the conversation during recent events (i.e. the War on Women being waged by the Republican Party). Who are these so-called anti-choice feminists? Well, Rose states that they they are the women coming out of the woodwork supposedly and building an alleged majority who do not agree with the “anti-male feminism” from the 1960s and the “girls gone wild” mentality that is seen so often today.

I am offended by this Ms. Rose. Feminists do not hate males nor do have they ever had an anti-male mission of their movement. Feminists are for and always have been for equality, meaning, men and women should be treated and viewed as equal. Why would we desire to be equal to a part of our species that we hate? Moving on. “Girls gone wild.” Really? You’re comparing my feminist values of equality and justice to a film series from the late 1990s that involves a camera crew following attractive (in a socially constructed way) women during events such as spring break, Mardi Gras or while on vacation at a resort or out at a night club. The women in these films are often encouraged, by men, to expose their bodies and perform sexual activities to earn Girls Gone Wild paraphernalia. You see, when you are trying to oppose an argument or a movement, you probably shouldn’t insult them with analogies to the very concept(s) they are striving to change.

Oh, what’s that? You meant Girls Gone Wild in a increased “availability and use of cheap birth control coincides with increases in the rates of sex addiction, divorce, unmarried childbearing and abortion.” kind of way? Oh, okay. So women using birth control have caused divorce, children out of wedlock, and abortions? But I thought birth control prevents pregnancy 99% of the time? So come again how birth control leads to pregnancy and abortions? Right. It doesn’t. I don’t see the connection to divorce either. And sex addiction? Well that’s a little drastic, but yes, perhaps more women are having sex because they are at less risk of pregnancy. OH NO!

You also meant that women using contraceptives and seeking legal abortions are increasing the exploitative attitude of men toward women, didn’t you Ms. Rose? (See quote: “We have also noticed that while contraceptives and legal abortion promised to eliminate the exploitative attitude of men toward women, they have had the opposite effect.”) I must be some silly feminist to think these exploitative attitudes were stemming from patriarchy and power dynamics, gender inequality, and men feeling greater than women throughout history. Silly me.

What these two statements really tell me is that you reject women having sex unless it is within marriage and for the purpose of reproduction. Well, don’t shoot the messenger, but Ms. Rose, these are not anti-choice feminist beliefs, they are Catholic beliefs. They are deeply rooted in strict religious beliefs that are contingent upon values of family, marriage, and love. Family is a biological creation, it cannot be disputed. However, marriage and love are arguably two controversial social constructs, especially in relation to sex and raising a child. Don’t get me wrong, you’re perfectly entitled to these beliefs, albeit religious not “anti-choice feminist,” but what you are not entitled to is bashing an entire movement (feminism) and comparing it to an extremely misogynistic, sexist, objectifying film series for the sake of making yourself feel better about the slippery-slope arguments you attempted to make in your Politico article.

And one last thing, Ms. Rose. You blame birth control and abortions for the condition of our society today (high divorce rates, single-parents, children out of wedlock, etc). Yet you conclude with what I presume you find to be promising:

Studies show pregnancy, birth and abortion rates among young women have decreased lately.

And then…

According to the National Survey of Family Growth, abstinence among 15-to-24-year-old females has increased by nearly one-third, to 29 percent, over the past decade.

Let me see if I have this right:

…in a country with a current Democratic President that supports a woman’s right to choose and her reproductive rights as well as her right to take birth control if she so chooses and therefore maintains birth control and abortions to be legal, the rates of pregnancy among young women as well as abortions are decreasing. And girls haven’t actually gone wild because abstinent females are increasing, which therefore means less women are having sex and decreasing women on birth control. So really, birth control and abortion have nothing to do with the problems you claimed because your research shows both birth control use and abortions are decreasing yet divorce rates and having children out of wedlock are not decreasing and exploitative attitudes towards women by men have not changed.

No further questions. I rest my case.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s