Woodhull’s Comment on Abortion Wedge issue
Woodhull has made a great comment (actually there were a few)on the wedge issue of abortion;
The water’s edge of “pro choice” is a lot further out than merely whether a woman has ultimate say of her body. Again, I don’t know the stats and all I have is anecdotal evidence, but the idea of pro choice has changed the mind set and landscape of society and goes hand-in-glove with womens’ rights, generally. Being able to control the timing and number of births, women have been able to compete more fully in a “man’s world.” From being able to finish her Masters to setting her sights on the corner office or simply allowing her to remain an unfettered, single woman; a woman who doesn’t have to worry about a pregancy (and more importantly, children) interrupting her career trajections can take that chip off her competitions’ stack. More about that in a second.
Conversely, all of society has suffered (but more particularly women) because, let’s face it, eggs get old (but, interestingly, sperm probably survives the grave!), so it’s a double edge sword and a real dilemma for women–secure your future at the risk of not having a progeny to enjoy your efforts. I guess that would mean you really can spend your nonexistent childrens’ inheritance. There are many causes of infertility, but I think the single greatest one is simply that women delay (for too long) the decision to start a family. And we all wonder how men can get away with taking up with someone who’s half their age with impunity. We have a number of laws and societal changes in place now that complement the reality that women cannot compete successfully in the work force if they are discriminated against because they choose to have a child: Family Leave, beefed-up prenatal care and precise anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. However. What cannot be legislated are society’s views toward the traditional role of motherhood–not parenthood–specifically motherhood. Who gets the most heat for latchkey children, the men? Not hardly.
But here’s where it gets interesting: Enter a pretty, smart woman like Sarah Palin. The first shocker is she is pretty AND a governor! That’s news all by itself. Then, saints alive! she’s got kids, too! And not only does she have kids, she has a lot of kids (not just the two to replace herself and Todd). The frosting on the cake? She was flying all over AK (not an easy thing to do in the first place) while pregnant AND she made the pro-CHOICE of keeping her and her husband’s less-than-physically-perfect child! What a woman! She just kicked big holes in womens’ rights argument that the only way women can compete is by remaining child free. Of course the most handy argument is that not every woman is Sarah Palin, with a husband who supports the family while she pursues her career (never mind that a commercial fisherman is in no position to take his whole brood out to sea every day). Suddenly it isn’t looking so good for women who have used that rationale for abortion, because Sarah is the poster girl for what all women can do if they took womens’ rights seriously. Because if we all did (men and women), poof! no wedge issue. Such a rift would return to its rightful place as an ideological discussion over theism versus atheism, which currently and rightfully has no legitimate place in these discussions.
There’s a lot more to this conversation and it seems to me that pro choice and pro life supporters have more in common and could have a real dialogue if pols would get out of the conversation. I think HRC sums the whole thing up very well whenever she mades the statement, “God given potential.”
Lots of good stuff there, two things I want to focus on.
Being able to control the timing and number of births, women have been able to compete more fully in a “man’s world.” From being able to finish her Masters to setting her sights on the corner office or simply allowing her to remain an unfettered, single woman; a woman who doesn’t have to worry about a pregancy (and more importantly, children) interrupting her career trajectory can take that chip off her competitions’ stack.
The most important thing is that there is a choice. We all have choices on what we want to do, it all depends on our priorities in life. Anytime anyone makes a choice, they need to be aware of the opportunity costs involved with that choice. I know opportunity cost is a economic concept, but it has profound meaning in our everyday lives. The opportunity cost of finishing “her Masters” is that she will give up some of her child bearing years. There is always that give and take aspect to any decision we make, it’s the price we pay. Now modern day contraceptives make that decision easier, by lowering the opportunity costs involved. For example, by using contraceptives a modern woman doesn’t have to worry as much about how to juggle career and motherhood, since contraceptive lower the cost (getting pregnant).
Now I’m not hear to talk about the morality of it all. That’s really none of my business what a woman decides to do. I just want people to be aware that there is no free lunch. Everything we do involves choices and every choice has an opportunity cost involved. I think in this debate we all need to grow up and act like adults and acknowledge that what we do has consequences.
Second point I want to make stems from this, in regards to Sarah Palin.
Suddenly it isn’t looking so good for women who have used that rationale for abortion, because Sarah is the poster girl for what all women can do if they took womens’ rights seriously.
First off, I think one of the big reasons why leftist groups like NOW don’t really like Palin, is because that is exactly what Palin did. She didn’t go by the “rules” set forth by NOW, she did it her way. She made her own choices and has stuck by them. Groups like NOW don’t like that, they don’t like people making their own choices. When people think for themselves and decide for themselves, it empowers the individual making the choices. NOW has made tons of money but letting women outsource the decision making to groups like themselves.
Think about groups like NOW, NARAL and EMILY’s list, what do they do? I think all they are good for is putting out lists of who the “approved” politicians are. They put out lists of how to live an “approved” lifestyle. Well who approves them? NOW, NARAL and EMILY’s list of course, not the millions of women out there, but the select few at the head of those organizations. It’s all about control. Much like the Abortion debate is all about controlling the message, those groups are trying to control a woman’s decision, by telling them how to live the “Feminist” way.
What happens when a woman doesn’t live and choice the way NOW, NARAL et al think they should? They get attacked just like Palin did. We have a younger generation of women, that don’t really know about making their own decision about; abortion, career/family management, etc. They have grown up listening to the “experts” tell them how to act and how to think. We have conflict between the older generation that fought for equal protection and the younger generation that think they are entitled to it. It’s one big groupthink mind fuck! As a result, we have young women doing more damage to women’s rights than the young men of this generation ever could. Hell as more and more young men are blurring the line between man and woman; metrosexual, emo, beta males, we have the young women attacking older woman that try to live life by their own rules. It’s maddening.
Yet, it’s exactly the way the politically powerful want it. They don’t want people making up their own mind. They don’t want people to understand opportunity cost. They want to keep control. The easiest way to do that is to create a populace that outsources the decision making.
I think it’s going to get much worse from here on out.
Here is a clip of NOW backpedaling over the “controversy” on the Tebow commercial. Just for laughs.
One thing I like about this clip, is that it’s woman on woman and it shows that you don’t have to be a Democratic shill to be an empowered woman anymore.