Isn't there still a need for feminism?
As much as feminism has run it's course, we (in America at least) still live in pretty volatile times, politically speaking.
Let's face it, a lot of the rights battled for by feminism in the previous generation aren't exactly secure. With states like South Dakota passing the Woman's Health and Human Life Protection Act (and you thought the Patriot Act sounded Orwellian), essentially overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal except when the mother's life is in danger, a woman's right to choose is severely threatened.
So with the fundamental right of a person to do whatever they want with their body still in jeopardy in many states - if not potentially the entire nation should South Dakota's case reach the extremely conservative Supreme Court - isn't there still a need for feminists to keep up the fight over this issue? Therefore...isn't there still a need for feminists?
As much as I don't see eye-to-eye with much of the philosophy and false victimhood that fuels the feminist movement, I have to admit that our society isn't so progressive that it can maintain some of these delicate rights on it's own without an angry mob pushing this agenda.
Now, I'm not exactly pro-choice in the sense that I don't see abortion as a bad thing. It is an ugly procedure that I would love to see never (need to) happen again. I consider myself more anti-legislating people's organs than pro-abortion, and one only needs to look at some of the impoverished nations in Africa to see the devastating effect of so many unwanted children (or the drop in violent crime in America that started, conveniently, around eighteen years after Roe v. Wade was established). "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are such idiotic terms, anyway, since everyone is both of those things.
I can see that this is a non-issue for the pro-life, so perhaps it's just an issue for all of us liberal/progressive anti-feminists to think about.
Lastly, both "Mary Doe" of Doe v. Bolton and "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade have come to describe themselves as pro-life and are currently fighting to overturn their cases. I don't think this really effects the argument very much, but isn't it strange that both women could be called anti-feminist?
And let me make something clear: I'm still anti-feminist, I just recognize the need in my country for there to be a group of stick-flailing Amazon she-bitches preserving their reproductive rights. I'm also anti-crazy civil libertarian survivalist gun nut, but I still want someone out there fighting over the questionable fringes of our civil and economic liberties so politicians are less likely to take stabs at our core freedoms. I mean, without those extreme political wings, who would fight for those things?
Thoughts? Am I onto something or am I just completely bonkers?
Let's face it, a lot of the rights battled for by feminism in the previous generation aren't exactly secure. With states like South Dakota passing the Woman's Health and Human Life Protection Act (and you thought the Patriot Act sounded Orwellian), essentially overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal except when the mother's life is in danger, a woman's right to choose is severely threatened.
So with the fundamental right of a person to do whatever they want with their body still in jeopardy in many states - if not potentially the entire nation should South Dakota's case reach the extremely conservative Supreme Court - isn't there still a need for feminists to keep up the fight over this issue? Therefore...isn't there still a need for feminists?
As much as I don't see eye-to-eye with much of the philosophy and false victimhood that fuels the feminist movement, I have to admit that our society isn't so progressive that it can maintain some of these delicate rights on it's own without an angry mob pushing this agenda.
Now, I'm not exactly pro-choice in the sense that I don't see abortion as a bad thing. It is an ugly procedure that I would love to see never (need to) happen again. I consider myself more anti-legislating people's organs than pro-abortion, and one only needs to look at some of the impoverished nations in Africa to see the devastating effect of so many unwanted children (or the drop in violent crime in America that started, conveniently, around eighteen years after Roe v. Wade was established). "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are such idiotic terms, anyway, since everyone is both of those things.
I can see that this is a non-issue for the pro-life, so perhaps it's just an issue for all of us liberal/progressive anti-feminists to think about.
Lastly, both "Mary Doe" of Doe v. Bolton and "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade have come to describe themselves as pro-life and are currently fighting to overturn their cases. I don't think this really effects the argument very much, but isn't it strange that both women could be called anti-feminist?
And let me make something clear: I'm still anti-feminist, I just recognize the need in my country for there to be a group of stick-flailing Amazon she-bitches preserving their reproductive rights. I'm also anti-crazy civil libertarian survivalist gun nut, but I still want someone out there fighting over the questionable fringes of our civil and economic liberties so politicians are less likely to take stabs at our core freedoms. I mean, without those extreme political wings, who would fight for those things?
Thoughts? Am I onto something or am I just completely bonkers?