Feminism

[guerillablack]

What are your views on feminism? Do you think it is important that all communists/socialists be feminist also?

[viva le revolution]

Communism makes no distinctions at all between male and female workers. Marx proposes that both make up equal parts in the workforce and revolution. Marx proposed the abolishment of the family structure in his communist manifesto to avoid domestic exploitation of the woman. Therefore a true Marxist/Socialist is neither feminist nor sexist as the struggle is not a gender-based one but a class-based one.

[Bolshevist]

Therefore a true Marxist/Socialist is neither feminist

That is false, many communists are radical feminists, myself included. There can be no working class liberation without womens liberation!

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:25 PM

Therefore a true Marxist/Socialist is neither feminist

That is false, many communists are radical feminists, myself included. There can be no working class liberation without womens liberation!
Im confused, i'd always thought feminists were liberators and freedom fighters until i saw one going on baout how women were better than men. If a commie is fighting for equal rights of course they can be femminsit. Not the other type though.

[Bolshevist]

You cannot make up your mind because you have met one feminist. I have met feminists who claims that class struggle has been replaced by gender struggle, and of course I do not listen to this crazy talk, neither should you.

[bolshevik butcher]

ok, good.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:55 PM
What are your views on feminism? Do you think it is important that all communists/socialists be feminist also?
I would say that it's not only important but imperative!

You will sometimes run into people who argue otherwise...and you should be prepared to forcefully contest their position.

For example, you'll hear something like "feminism divides the working class".

The truth is exactly the opposite; when women insist on absolute equality in the revolutionary movement, that actually unites more people around the revolutionary project than it drives away. Every "sexist pig" that stomps out in disgust will ultimately be replaced by thousands of revolutionary women.

It's the same with racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc. Every time someone with those reactionary views leaves or is driven out of the revolutionary left, they will ultimately be replaced by huge numbers of black, brown, and gay revolutionaries.

Another argument that you may encounter goes something like "feminists are female supremacists".

A few are but most are not. More importantly, it's not necessary to "dwell on that" at any length. We are not endangered by "female supremacy" in any sense; the threats we face all originate in the views of patriarchal, white, and extremely wealthy males.

When people are oppressed in a particular way, a small minority of them will react to their oppression by "inventing" a mirror-image of it -- where they get to be the oppressors and their former oppressors become the oppressed.

It's not required for us to take that seriously...as, historically speaking, it rarely amounts to anything of consequence.

Very few feminists envision a social order in which women occupy all the positions of power and status while men are reduced to domestic serfdom.

Those that do can safely be ignored, I think.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[DoomedOne]

Indeed most ideologies and movements are made up of reasonable, progressive people. The side of these movements that the media pays most attention to are the crazies within it. Feminism as a movement is a large part of Marxism, because it stresses that neither men nor women hold more power than the other, and both give equally to the community.

[Severian]

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 30 2005, 02:20 PM
Communism makes no distinctions at all between male and female workers.
I disagree. Communists have to recognize that there is, today, an important distinction between male and female workers: the latter are oppressed as women as well as exploited as workers. We don't just fight class exploitation; we fight every kind of oppression. The working class cannot liberate itself otherwise. As Redstar accurately explains, that's the only way to achieve unity. This involves joining struggles that involve "distinctions at all between male and female workers", for example the fight for women to have the right to make their own reproductive choices. They are different y'know, they get pregnant, so a precondition for any real equality is the right to control their own bodies.

Even under communism, a Marxist approach to equality isn't pretending everyone is identical and interchangeable and should be treated the same; that's a bourgeois formal legal equality approach. If you think about it, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" has nothing to do with one size fits all.

This formulation reminds me of Eugene Debs on racism: that socialism had "nothing specific to offer the negro, and we cannot make special appeals to all the races. The Socialist party is the party of the working class, regardless of color—the whole working class of the whole world". While this reflected Debs' personal lack of prejudice, rejection of racist discrimination by workers' organizations, and desire to unite all workers....it also reflected the failure of the early Socialist Party, even its revolutionary wing, to lift a finger to combat segregation and racist discrimination by the bosses and their state.


Therefore a true Marxist/Socialist is neither feminist nor sexist as the struggle is not a gender-based one but a class-based one.

Depends what you mean.

For a Marxist, the class division is fundamental; women's oppression and the patriarchal family are products of the rise of class society. That puts us opposed to those feminists who argue that a male vs. female conflict of interest is more fundamental; that perspective needs to be debated. Possibly in some countries the term "feminism" is mostly used to refer to that trend specifically; in the U.S. at least "feminism" usually means simply support for women's liberation and women's equality, and it's understood there are different trends within that, including Marxism, liberal feminism, various petty-bourgeois radical feminist trends, etc.

But there is "gender-based", if you want to put it that way, oppression of women as women, and a need to fight against that, which will often include most-female or all-female groups, since those directly affected react first and strongest against oppression. Just as there are fights against racism, imperialism, etc.

[guerillablack]

Okay, during women's liberation. Woman began talking more freely about sex and taboo subjects. Do you look at this as something postive or negative? Necessary to the female liberation or counter revolutionary. I mean it shattered a whole culture and stereotypes of women, but was the outcome that great?

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:00 AM
I mean it shattered a whole culture and stereotypes of women, but was the outcome that great?
Women were given more rights and abilities to do what they beleived. SO how could be anything but good?

[coda]

The fight for equality actually has made great strides since the old days of female oppression when we weren't allowed to contribute to society outside the home. Now you can be holding a baby in one arm, a bag of groceries in the other and the person walking ahead of you lets the door slam in your fucking face. Just equally neuterized rudeness. Yup, That's what we've been fighting for.

However, though...

I am sure I am going to get "that is reactionary in a communist society" but Is retaining the family structure always negative? Should it be totally abolished? Women aren't going to be used as breeding incubators if they can't keep their children afterwards. Though I can see the point in "It takes a Village" and mutual aid and so on.. But, to not either know who your blood relatives are or have that bond just seems like added existential shit. Everyone knows how adopted people who even have charmed lives most generally go on the search to find their birth parents because they feel the need to know who they come from. Family structures are good even if they aren't retained as the conventional Capitalist nuclear family patriarchial archtype. Why?? So, you're just not floating around in isolated alienation within an impersonal social organism or even worse.. living in large communal work organizations centered around the production machinery. Blahh!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:00 PM
Okay, during women's liberation. Woman began talking more freely about sex and taboo subjects. Do you look at this as something postive or negative? Necessary to the female liberation or counter revolutionary. I mean it shattered a whole culture and stereotypes of women, but was the outcome that great?
I'm not sure what is meant by "culture" in this context, but I will say that there's nothing "sacred" about "cultures" as such.

Cultures were invented by people and can be changed or even "shattered" by people as they see fit.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[guerillablack]

So take gender roles for example and family structure. If a mother says i don't want to be affectionate any more due to feminism is that progressive?

[Redmau5]

I doubt Feminism would suddenly make a mother's affection for her husband/kids disappear.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:35 PM
So take gender roles for example and family structure. If a mother says I don't want to be affectionate any more due to feminism, is that progressive?
Remember that women are heavily indoctrinated to the effect that their "duty" is to be "affectionate" (just as men have a "duty" to be physically "courageous").

What you have to always ask yourself is "affectionate" towards whom and courageous on behalf of what.

Suppose a woman has a kid who grows up to become a cop, a mercenary, a real estate speculator, or similar scum; should she still be "affectionate"? Or should she boot the asshole out of her life forever?

The message of feminism is, in one sense, a call to "quit faking it"...act like you really feel, not like people or patriarchy say you "ought" to feel.

That's a progressive message for men as well as women.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Shevek]

As far as I'm concerned feminism, as I understand it, is the liberation of women. As a libertarian socialist, I am interested in the freedom of all people. So in some ways I am a pro-femenist male and in some ways I am not.

[guerillablack]

Why are you not?

What if i'm against abortion, does that make me anti-feminist?

[Shevek]

I said in SOME ways I am not. I consider the liberation of women ONE part of my goal, there are many others.

And no, I don't think your anti-feminist if you don't believe in abortion. Personally I would leave the choice up to my (hypothetical :lol: ) girlfriend, but I do think the choice is morally ambiguous, which is why it's being debated. But if you think that women should have the exact same choices as men, but don't think they have control of a fetus' life or semi-life, then your still a feminist, but have different opinions than most.

[Black Dagger]

What if i'm against abortion, does that make me anti-feminist?

Yes. Why do you have the right to de facto control the bodies of women? The feminist position is firmly in support of abortion, after all pro-choice is one of the major struggles of feminists.


But if you think that women should have the exact same choices as men, but don't think they have control of a fetus' life or semi-life, then your still a feminist...

Except he's a man imposing his moral/religious paradigm on a woman/women, negating their choice.

[DoomedOne]

It does not necessarily make him anti-feminism. If you haven't read his signature, he is religious, and his religion tells of only one god, and of strict moral obligations.

I don't personally like abortion, but I can easily see myself in a situation where it would be necessary, and no matter what, I'd leave it up to the woman. People are allowed their own opinions as long as they don't take to themselves to have all the answers and be an absolute judge of right and wrong. Feminism is tricky regarding abortion, because there's nothing quite like it for men. You can't preach equality when there's nothing equal to it.

[Black Dagger]

It does not necessarily make him anti-feminism. If you haven't read his signature, he is religious, and his religion tells of only one god, and of strict moral obligations.

It does if he thinks he has a right to tell a woman what do with their own body, or seeks to impose this idea on women. I honestly care if he's religious or about 'strict moral obligations', you're either for the complete emancipation and rights of women or not. Saying you support womens rights and struggle on issues that are 'comfortable' for you (for religious or whatever reasons) is not to be legitimately feminist (or arguably communist).


People are allowed their own opinions as long as they don't take to themselves to have all the answers and be an absolute judge of right and wrong.

Isn't that what a religion of 'strict moral obligations' requires? if 'god' doesnt approve of abortions than they are fundamentally 'wrong', then again, 'god' is on the reactionary side of most social issues, apparently.


Feminism is tricky regarding abortion, because there's nothing quite like it for men. You can't preach equality when there's nothing equal to it.

That's not true at all. The fact that men can't conceive has no impact whatsoever on whether or not a man can be fully supportive of a womens' right to choose, to control their own bodies. Just because men cant 'match rights' with women on every issue (we're different genders after all) doesnt change the fact that a consistent male-feminist fundamentally supports the idea that women need to be free to make decisions that concern them, ie. free from the 'morals' of men, or religion for that matter.

[DoomedOne]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 1 2005, 06:17 PM

It does not necessarily make him anti-feminism. If you haven't read his signature, he is religious, and his religion tells of only one god, and of strict moral obligations.

It does if he thinks he has a right to tell a woman what do with their own body, or seeks to impose this idea on women. I honestly care if he's religious or about 'strict moral obligations', you're either for the complete emancipation and rights of women or not. Saying you support womens rights and struggle on issues that are 'comfortable' for you (for religious or whatever reasons) is not to be legitimately feminist (or arguably communist).


People are allowed their own opinions as long as they don't take to themselves to have all the answers and be an absolute judge of right and wrong.

Isn't that what a religion of 'strict moral obligations' requires? if 'god' doesnt approve of abortions than they are fundamentally 'wrong', then again, 'god' is on the reactionary side of most social issues, apparently.


Feminism is tricky regarding abortion, because there's nothing quite like it for men. You can't preach equality when there's nothing equal to it.

That's not true at all. The fact that men can't conceive has no impact whatsoever on whether or not a man can be fully supportive of a womens' right to choose, to control their own bodies. Just because men cant 'match rights' with women on every issue (we're different genders after all) doesnt change the fact that a consistent male-feminist fundamentally supports the idea that women need to be free to make decisions that concern them, ie. free from the 'morals' of men, or religion for that matter.
You're either for emancipation or not? What the Hell? That's like Bush saying you're either with us or against us. That's like saying you're either a terrorist or a republican. There is no black and white here. To struggle for the equality of women shows a loyalty to feminism regardless.

Just to follow a religion does not mean that you have to impose your religion on others. You can follow your moral obligations, but that does not entail forcing others to follow them.

The idea of feminism is that men and women are equal, and that both genders are given equal opportunities in society. Because abortion cannot be compared to men, it is disredgarded when talking about "equality" alone, not necessarily feminism, though.

You're talking about a right a man has to call himself a feminist. It's a label, and as long as many women who disgrace the word feminism by preaching matriarchal societies and replacing one gender in power for another, there can be people who oppose certain aspects of something and yet still believe in the bare idea of it.

Lastly, the thing your have to realize about abortion, and the argument of abortion, is that if people could simply agree on the terms, there would be no argument. "Murder of a child" "No, women's right to choose" "Life begins out independence" "Life begins at conception" etcetera... My opinion on abortion is that life begins before conception, those millions of sperm are all alive, and the process of reproduction requires all but one (sometimes two) be murdered, and they'll all die anyway. Simply because this one sperm is given a chance to grow into a fetus does not mean it is suddenly precious and must be protected at all costs.

[coda]

Maybe that is Guerilla Black's PERSONAL opinion, which he is entitled to have. I don't think if it's his personal opinion, that it would not make him a femininist. I think father's have a 90% (give or take) inclusion over any sperm that is spawned.

Not The guy next door or the guy sitting in Government, however.

You can have a personal opinioning regarding something such as abortion, that doesn't neccessarily mean you want to impose it upon all humanity. That is what PRO-CHOICE means, the choice, for any given reason, to also choose to forego that medical procedure. Pro-choce does not favor abortion, but favors the right to have one.. and the right not to have one.

[redstar2000]

This thread has gotten messy...and pretty disturbing as well. :(


Originally posted by guerrillablack signature
THERE IS NO DEITY WORTHY OF WORSHIP EXCEPT ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER

I have signature-display blocked in my profile to speed up downloading on my dial-up connection. So when people put really reactionary stuff in their signatures, I don't see it unless someone mentions it and I go to their profile and have a look.

Islam is an intensely patriarchal religion, of course...with very elaborate rules for keeping women subservient to men in every sphere of human activity. As a general rule, the more closely a given country's legal structure follows Islamic law, the worse the situation is there for women in every way.

There are "Islamic feminists", to be sure. But they are in much the same situation now as Christian abolitionists in 19th century America were.

The Christian "holy book" says plainly that slavery is ok; thus, the abolitionists in order to portray slavery as "evil" had to flat out lie.

They had to construct a myth that their Bible "condemned slavery" as an "abomination in the eyes of God".

The Muslim feminist is in the same position: the Koran is "just fine" with female subservience -- so she has to flat out lie in order to make her struggle for equality "religiously acceptable".

It's not a very plausible lie; serious Muslim males who've studied the Koran can "shoot it down" pretty easily.

It's a matter of simple fact that in the Muslim world, the only allies that women have had among the menfolk were secular nationalists -- like Atatürk, Nasser, and, yes, Saddam Hussein. It's been widely reported that women in Iraq are now far more oppressed under the U.S. occupation and its Shiite quislings than was the case under Hussein's Baathists.

Devout Muslims (especially males) are and must be intransigent enemies of female liberation -- just as devout Christians in the U.S. also oppose women's rights on every level.

You are not permitted to dispute God's -- or Allah's -- expressed word.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[guerillablack]

However, this has nothing to do with my religion. So why are you guys using it as an argument?

[DoomedOne]

Obviously they'd be more oppressed. The US is famous for putting in more oppressive governments. Anyway, I am yet to meet a person who can follow their religious literature word for word. Most just accept certain interpretations. For isntance, Malcom Xs form of Islam was one of equal rights, though he himself was not necessarily a total feminist. Most fundamentalists read only John 3:16 from their Bible, and little more. It's the same idea, and it's not a bad thing. Also, anywhere you go, cities tend to be much more liberal than small villages. The more rural you get, the more conservative the people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:25 PM
However, this has nothing to do with my religion. So why are you guys using it as an argument?
No, it has everything to do with your religion...assuming you take it seriously.

(And if you don't take it seriously, then why plug it in your signature?)

Given that you must believe that the Koran is "the Word of Allah", then it logically follows that you must accept the principle of female subservience to male authority.

Unless, of course, you've had a "new revelation" and intend to found a new (and heretical) version of Islam. :o

But perhaps you're not serious about Islam; like many Christians, perhaps you go through your "holy book" and "cherry pick" the stuff you like...while pretending all the bad stuff ain't in there.

I can't help but feel that your motives for starting this thread were...not very good ones. I suspect you of "fishing"...hoping to find some folks who would reject feminism so that you could privately discuss with them the "virtues" of Islam in that regard.

That's not good.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[coda]

"cherry pick" eh?

I find that a very sexist comment, especially with use in a 'Femininst" topic.

:P

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:25 PM
However, this has nothing to do with my religion. So why are you guys using it as an argument?
So why do you oppose legal abortion, then?

(Lemme point out that your religion was first brought up, oddly, in your support. As if a bad position becomes good if it's held for religious reasons?)

In answer to your question, clearly you're opposing women's rights on this issue. It's possible you might be pro-women's rights in other respects...but not usually, I've found.

You keep asking these vague questions, why not say where you stand?

Contrary to what Redstar's saying, though, there are in fact Muslim feminists. How they reconcile that with sexist stuff in the Koran (and the Hadith, where most of the worst stuff is)....that's their problem. I don't see any usefulness in joining with reactionaries in telling them, 'If you're a Muslim, you must be sexist! Hey, all you billion Muslims, be more sexist, dammit! I hate inconsistency!'...or as Redstar puts it, "you must accept the principle of female subservience to male authority" or not be a real, serious Muslim...precisely what the most reactionary Muslims accuse them of.

The hard truth is, Redstar, those billion people aren't going to give up their religion tomorrow just cause you tell 'em so. So if someone's willing to join a progressive cause but unwilling to give up their religion...welcome aboard! I'm certainly not going to come up with scriptural exegeses against it. I'll leave that to the Taliban.


Okay, during women's liberation. Woman began talking more freely about sex and taboo subjects. Do you look at this as something postive or negative? Necessary to the female liberation or counter revolutionary. I mean it shattered a whole culture and stereotypes of women, but was the outcome that great?

This question contains a false assumption. The so-called sexual revolution of the 60s wasn't primarily caused by the women's liberation movement of the 70s, clearly, since it started earlier.

I'd say open discussion of sex, or anything else, is progressive. Free access to information about sex, to birth control, etc., is progressive. Repealing laws against what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is progressive. Not everything done in the name of "sexual liberation" is automatically progressive.

Which results are you referring to, exactly?

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 2 2005, 02:28 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 2 2005, 02:28 AM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 07:25 PM
However, this has nothing to do with my religion. So why are you guys using it as an argument?
No, it has everything to do with your religion...assuming you take it seriously.

(And if you don't take it seriously, then why plug it in your signature?)

Given that you must believe that the Koran is "the Word of Allah", then it logically follows that you must accept the principle of female subservience to male authority.

Unless, of course, you've had a "new revelation" and intend to found a new (and heretical) version of Islam. :o

But perhaps you're not serious about Islam; like many Christians, perhaps you go through your "holy book" and "cherry pick" the stuff you like...while pretending all the bad stuff ain't in there.

I can't help but feel that your motives for starting this thread were...not very good ones. I suspect you of "fishing"...hoping to find some folks who would reject feminism so that you could privately discuss with them the "virtues" of Islam in that regard.

That's not good.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
No, I'm writing a report on Fear of Flying and why it's a feminist book and wanted to know more information about feminism. You figured me out redstar, i want to find everyone who rejects feminism and create a fanatic islam group in america. shhh. :P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by guerrillablack
No, I'm writing a report on Fear of Flying and why it's a feminist book and wanted to know more information about feminism.

Erica Jong (http://www.ericajong.com/)

Jong at Heart (http://www.ericajong.com/jongatheart.htm)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[guerillablack]

Thanks im'ma use that for my last page on proving if the book is revolutionary/feminist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I remember thinking Fear Of Flying was a fucking great book when I read it. It helped, along with a lot of other things, of course, to strip away a lot of my weird notions about women and "how women think".

On a somewhat related note, radicals should really be mobilizing against the current backlash. I've met a lot of female comrades who are really scared, and feeling abandoned by a movement that is failing to address their very legitimate concerns.

[STI]

You're either for emancipation or not? What the Hell? That's like Bush saying you're either with us or against us.

Dichotomy ("one side or the other") is okay if it's true. Regarding the issue of emancipation, yes, it's one or the other, damnit!

When Bush said "you're either for us or against us", he was just blowing smoke. He hasn't gone and declared war on everyone who didn't participate in his "War on Terror", now, did he?


That's like saying you're either a terrorist or a republican.

No it isn't. Not at all, actually. There are a lot of other things you could be. A Democrat, for example. When it comes to emancipation, there's no "halfway". There's no "third option". A group is either "emancipated" or "not".


To struggle for the equality of women shows a loyalty to feminism regardless.


Feminism, I think, isn't about "equality" for women, but the liberation of women, inasmuch as capitalism allows liberation of people in general. So, then, if you oppose the liberation of a woman's reproductive capacity (ie: the abortion issue, birth control, etc.), then you are not a feminist.


Just to follow a religion does not mean that you have to impose your religion on others.

No, it means you try, though. It means your religion has an effect on what you think about other things (the abortion issue, for example).


You can follow your moral obligations, but that does not entail forcing others to follow them

In theory, not necessarily. In practice, almost always.


The idea of feminism is that men and women are equal, and that both genders are given equal opportunities in society

That's one part of feminism. That requires the liberation of women from patriarchy. That requires things like abortion to be allowed and acceptable.


Because abortion cannot be compared to men, it is disredgarded when talking about "equality" alone, not necessarily feminism, though.

That's because feminism about more than just "equality".


You're talking about a right a man has to call himself a feminist. It's a label, and as long as many women who disgrace the word feminism by preaching matriarchal societies and replacing one gender in power for another, there can be people who oppose certain aspects of something and yet still believe in the bare idea of it.

"OMG some people who aren't really feminists call themselves feminists therefore it's okay for anybody, even people who oppose fundamental parts of feminism,, to call themselves feminists".

No. The fact that there are some people who fuck around with feminism isn't an excuse for fucking around with feminism and calling yourself a feminist.


My opinion on abortion is that life begins before conception, those millions of sperm are all alive, and the process of reproduction requires all but one (sometimes two) be murdered, and they'll all die anyway.

One of the big differences between pro-choicers and anti-choicers is what "life" is. Of course a zygotte is "alive". It does all that cellular respiration business, it produces waste, it grows, all that. But so what? Does that make it somehow immune to termination? No. It isn't conscious, and that's what anti-abortionists don't want to accept.

[jentle]

My area of interest is feminism... If you have ANY questions I am pretty sure I will be able to answer most (I have not read Fear of Flying however).

I think it is extremely important and dare I say necessary for all individuals involved in socialist/communist movements to be feminists (perhaps not the actual "term" but the actions). I've studied feminism for years now and the current progressive movement seems to be focused on bringing down all forms of hierarchy. In order do that, feminism must also embrace all other oppressive movements and work with them. A feminists focus should not be to be above a man or to be in the patriarchal-capitalist-white-males shoes. Rather the focus should be, as a person said before, "not to fake it." I believe capitalism AND communism have both put far too much emphasis on the "liberty of work" you talk to an oppressed group who have been forced into slave labor or menial jobs (read bell hooks) work is not all it's cracked up to be nor should it be glorified.

However - if you want to take the Beauviorian route'. (She met w/ Che along with Sartre in the early 60's) she was strongly for socialism as a way to "Save society and free woman from being 'the other'"

How I see it - if you want a society to work together and progress together - you cannot oppress one group of people. You cannot just put one structure, gender, class, race etc into power. Therefore the feminist movement (especially the progressive, current one) I think is quite valid. But it also depends on your definition OF feminism... Or what time period.

[guerillablack]

But someone seems to be implying that in order to be feminist you have to be for abortion.

[Black Dagger]

But someone seems to be implying that in order to be feminist you have to be for abortion.

I'm inclined to agree with that statement, supporting the 'choice' of women, the ability to control their own bodies, is central to womens' liberation. Because it's liberation from archaic religious and 'moral' straight-jackets (which is is the foundation of anti-abortion arguments), as well as from capitalist exploitation.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 09:44 PM
But someone seems to be implying that in order to be feminist you have to be for abortion.
I wouldn't necessarily say one has to be "for" abortion - one simply has to recognise that a woman has an inalienable right to sovreignty over her body, as much as a man over his. This includes the right to abort a fetus if they feel so inclined.

In order to be a feminist, one must uphold the right of women to abortions, even if one finds it personally unpleasant.

[STI]

But someone seems to be implying that in order to be feminist you have to be for abortion.

I'm by no means "implying" any such thing. I'm saying it explicitly.

Here, just in case you didn't catch it earlier:

To be a feminist, you have to be in favour of legal abortions.