Hillarysworld

I am talking about sexist attacks NOT personally supporting women.  I dont agree with Nancy Pelosi either but after defending Sarah Palin's child all night because of some damn TV show and rather or not she belongs there I think people lose site of reality.

I agree that sexist attacks on women are intolerable, but, like Jdona, I cannot support all female politicians.

I have and will continue to condemn the kind of misogynistic treatment to which Sarah Palin has been subjected since 2008, as well as the shameful attacks on her family. However, that does not mean that I can or will support her as a candidate.

As a feminist, voting for McCain/Palin was not easy, but I felt it was the right thing to do, given the circumstances. However, I've been a feminist and pro-choice all my life, and I consider reproductive rights inseparable from wonen's rights. For me, there can be no gender equality without reproductive rights.

I will never again support any candidate - male or female - who is not pro-choice. Whether the candidate is Democratic or Republican is not important. Over the past two years, we have seen the erosion of reproductive rights at the hands of the Democrats, proving, again that women will be the first to be thrown under their bus.

I agree that it's time for women to stop bashing women. But, at the same time, I find it offensive for a female politician, to declare herself to be a feminist - if she is anti-choice. I just fail to see how anyone could seriously claim to support women's rights EXCEPT when it comes to reproductive rights. So, for me, from now on, being against the right of a woman to determine whether or not she will give birth is a deal breaker.

No one is pro-abortion, though the Far Right candidates would like to frame it as if we feminists were. They don't get that we are pro-choice. It's about the right to choose. Any candidate who supports government control over a woman's reproductive system cannot claim to be a pro-women's rights candidate, IMO.







-- Edited by freespirit on Friday 19th of November 2010 10:07:44 AM

freespirit wrote:

---

.... "However, I've been a feminist and pro-choice all my life, and I consider reproductive rights inseparable from wonen's rights. For me, there can be no gender equality without reproductive rights. "
[snip]


"I find it offensive for a female politician, to declare herself to be a feminist - if she is anti-choice. I just fail to see how anyone could seriously claim to support women's rights EXCEPT when it comes to reproductive rights." 
[snip]

"No one is pro-abortion, though the Far Right candidates would like to frame it as if we feminists were. They don't get that we are pro-choice. It's about the right to choose. Any candidate who supports government control over a woman's reproductive system cannot claim to be a pro-women's rights candidate, IMO."

-------------------------------

The logic that reproductive rights being exclusively a female issue is, IMHO, flawed.  A man should to have the right to "choose" reproduction as well or he is not being given equal/same rights as the women.  Therefore the act to abort or not is an act that in reality gives the woman MORE rights than the man - causing him to be the victim of gender discrimination.  Equal rights must mean Equal to All - women and men.  Hence the stumbling block for all pro-choice (abortion)=reproductive rights=equal rights for women argument.  And maybe it should be pointed out that (in most cases) two consenting "adults" did Choose to have sex knowing full well they could reproduce.  One could argue they have already "chosen" to reproduce.

However being pro-choice myself, I have never viewed the issue as an equal rights issue or a religious issue.  For me it is a personal freedom issue, a medical issue, a private matter that is none of my business issue - unless it crosses over into (what I consider) a fundamental human rights issue- to live.  Hence my belief that later term abortion should be banned.   Legal abortion in here to stay - but a revisiting of the laws to make them reflective modern medical science is what is needed.  Who, knowing that a 6-7 month old fetus can live outside the mother's womb - wants to see late term abortion continue?

So I for one - a self proclaimed feminist myself, certainly can/do/and will vote for pro-life female candidates who have every right to call themselves feminists.  I disagree completely that to be a feminist you must be pro-abortion.

---

 

jdona wrote:

---

Freespirit, I agree with you in principle. At the same time, I really hate the fact that for women the decisions we make have to narrowed down to prochoice. Its like this huge albatross around our neck that suffocates us. If both sides were simply to adopt the approach that Roe v Wade was settled law, and let the issue be, we wouldn't be controlled by that one issue. There is so much other stuff out there that we need to consider, but it always comes down to Roe v Wade. The Democrats have used that as a rallying cry and a bullwhip to bring women into the fold for so long, and I am just tired of having to vote with my uterus instead of my brain. I'm long past child bearing age, and I need to consider other things now, like Social Security, Medicare, taxes, etc. I'm just wore out from the beatings over pro choice that we've taken for the last 40 years.

---

I understand your argument completely, jdona, and in 2008, I encouraged the pro-choice women I know to put it aside, for the time being, and refuse to allow the Dems to use abortion as a bargaining chip with female voters.  It was that argument which allowed me to support McCain/Palin in 2008.

But, I knew that the issue could not be tabled forever - for me, at least.   Removing abortion from the deal was a necessary, temporary measure.  At some point, however, we have got to deal with it.  To me, abortion goes to the heart of sexism and gender inequality.  Reproductive rights are so fundamental, so personal, that in my opinion, those who refuse to support the right to choose see women as inferior, less intelligent, less capable, and less human than men.

As for thinking with the brain rather than the uterus, I would hope we all would be using not only our brains but our hearts.  If you are able to set this aside and not allow it to be a factor in determining for whom you will vote, that's your right.  But, for me - and speaking only for me - ignoring the issue isn't an option any longer.

 

 

B-word, I specifically and intentionally did not use the term "pro-abortion" as stated in your post. I used the term "pro-choice" and that's exactly what it is. That anyone should have the ability to or not to grant the right for a female to chose abortion is a gross injustice in the first place.

While you make some reasoned points with regard to the male's rights, I fail to see how that would work. If the woman wanted/needed an abortion and the man did not consent, who would make the decision? If she had to have his permission, where the hell's the equality in that. He won't be carrying the baby for nine months. He won't be giving birth. Nor will he have the same emotional bond (at least initially) to the child for whom he may be poorly prepared to care.

In a perfect world, there would be no need to discuss the issue. But, as we know, it's far from perfect, and very far from black and white.  Given the rape statistics, it's pretty damn clear that the power to determine whether sexual intercourse will occur not quite equal.

Late term abortion is a different matter. Many considerations there, but I can certainly see a number of circumstances in which it might be the best option.

Yes, Roe v. Wade still stands, for now. But, the ability to access abortions is diminishing, particularly in some states. I would be satisfied if the so called pro-life candidates would agree to leave it alone, and let the law stand, as someone suggested in a previous post. Sarah Palin stated that she would do so if elected VP in 2008, in spite of the fact that she's pro-life. Yet, when making speeches to more right wing Republicans and Tea-Party members, she jumped on the band wagon against abortion, using the issue, just as the Dems do, to gain a political advantage for her candidates.

If you choose to vote for a pro-life candidate, that's your right. But, as I said, and will say, again. I'm done with conservative women pols who declare themselves feminist, while advocating for making abortion illegal and/or unavailable. They can be pro-life in their churches, their Christian Women Groups, their homes, their families, and any other place, and that's fine. But, If they want to drag their beliefs about the issue in to the arena of government, I'll not only vote against them, but work like hell to keep them from being elected. And, I still maintain that a woman cannot be a feminist and anti-choice. It's a contradiction in terms. JMHO

Jen, I checked out Christian Patriarchy Movement, and OMG - That's some scary sh**.
Here's an excerpt from a sermon related to women:

Here, then, are keys to the question of a wife and mother working outside the home: Is it really beneficial to her family, does it aid her husband in his calling, and does it, in correlation with these first two, bring good to others? Can she do it while still being faithful to her primary calling to be wife and mother and to care for her home? It must be noted that even though the woman in Proverbs has not sought to “find herself” or to make her own career, but rather to serve her family, in the end she receives praise from her family (verses 28,29) and recognition for her labors (verse 31) because she has conducted the whole endeavor in obedience to the Lord she reverences (verse 30). The decision in this realm must not be unilateral on the part of the woman but made under the leadership of her husband as the head of the marriage and the family.

B word, I have no interest in reducing the issue to semantics and in analyzing this right in terms of age of embryo and viability.  That's what the right wing has always done, in their effort promote government control of the female uterus.   The discussion of when life begins  and the viability of the fetus, with or without the application of the new technology, is, IMO, a philosophical one, and has no place in discussion of the right of the mother to determine whether the birth  takes place.

We won't resolve the long-standing debate about the ethics and morality of abortion in this forum.  Obviously, these considerations are personal and individual.  Many women who would fight for this fundamental right to self-determination and control over one's body would never consider an abortion.  The deeper issue is the disregard for women and the denial of their right even to maintain control over their own bodies and lives.

At this point, abortion is legal, though barely accessible in some states.  At the time this hard won right was enacted, the medical technology was obviously not as advanced, as you insist.  If the issue of the viability of the fetus, in light of medical technology,  is the primary consideration one has in determining whether they want to continue to support this right, while I would strongly disagree with that approach, I respect the right to personal belief.  However, it does not alter my view point.  For me, that is not the only or the primary consideration, and I consider it a step backward to look at the issue only in these terms. 

I believe it's necessary at this point, for us to agree to disagree regarding the issue of abortion, itself, and to return to the discussion of women's rights.  If you or anyone else on this forum determines that it is in the best interest of the country to support an anti-choice candidate, that is without a doubt your right as a citizen of this country and as a member of this forum.  Let's recall, however, that it has been only 11 decades since women were granted the right to vote by the MEN in government.  Since that time, we have had to continue to fight for rights which men have taken for granted. 
We can't afford to begin losing the rights we have already won.

This is a serious issue to me.  Not just some political token.  Women's rights have always been in jeopardy.  Hell, we couldn't even get the Fair Pay Act passed, and it was voted against by all of the Republican female senators -  Hutchison, Snowe, Collins, and Murkowski.  Before we start vascilating on issues like abortion, we seriously need to think about how difficult it was to get this right and other rights in the first place.

B Word, If you'll notice, in my initial comment, I stated that the Dems had repeatedly let women down, and that loyalty to a party was not the issue. I continue to maintain that. I made the point about the Pub women voting against the act to demonstrate that those who are ready to jump on the band wagon of ANY female candidate might want to rethink. Women of both parties (as we have seen with Pelosi) have failed to support women's rights.

As far as demonstrating to HMG why the forum shouldn't be pro-choice, I don't think she needed convincing. But, I don't think our exchange resulted an any resolution or validation of whether or not the forum should or should not be pro-choice. It devolved into a discussion about the morality and ethics of abortion, just as it often does when people wish to muddle the issue and remove the focus on THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I know where I stand, and where I will continue to stand. If your intent was to make the case to HMG that the forum should not be pro-choice, then I would have to wonder what your motivation was.

If you wish to think that the women who declare themselves to be feminists while standing against reproductive rights, are, in fact, really feminists, you, of course, have that right. I suppose there is no formal criteria for feminism which one must meet before making the claim. I could claim to be conservative because I believe in fiscal responsibility, but I'm not. Semantics and terminology can be shaped to make any argument.

I will have to say that, as much as I would hate losing my association with this forum, which I greatly value, if it ever chose to support an anti-choice candidate for president, unless that candidate had made a believable case that she would fight against erosion of reproductive rights, I would have to remove myself.
The forum is called Hillarys World because of its historical support of Hillary Clinton, who has always supported reproductive rights.

Those of us who have been active here for many months have been able to argue pros and cons and to either compromise or agree to disagree. I will continue to try to do so - within reason. But, there's a limit to which an individual who has beliefs and convictions can and should go in compromising. Sacrificing principles for the sake of promoting a particular candidate, group, or effort is not something I can embrace.



-- Edited by freespirit on Saturday 20th of November 2010 12:15:06 PM

Honestly, Jdona, have real concerns about WHY this issue was pursued so actively by B word. On this forum, we have managed to avoid an atmosphere of conflict for months, even though we obviously, don't agree on everything.

Yet, after a really long absence from posting B word appeared to discuss this thread, and in one post came close to acknowledging she had a mission, to convince HMG that the forum should not be pro-choice, and that that mission had been accomplished. Not to be overly suspicious and certainly not to be insulting, but I find the whole matter very odd. It seemed clear after her first comment or two that the issue was being distorted and pushed to the point of conflict in order to prove a point - apparently that discussing abortion created conflict. She's wrong on that point. If done appropriately, we can discuss and disagree. Going way off topic and attempting to incite can cause conflict. The manner in which she brought irrelevant components into the discussion - bringing up the issue of men's rights (as if they hadn't had all the damn rights all along), repeatedly insisting that new medical technology was relevant, and excusing the Pub women for voting against Fair Pay are further indication that she was pushing to make a point or further a pre-determined agenda.

I've made it clear that I see no point in discussing the morality of abortion, and personally, don't give a damn who or how many people choose to have one - or not to have one. The issue remains about rights. More specifically women's rights. And, for me, the right to choose is an inseparable component of women's rights.

IMO, when government takes control of a woman's reproductive system, that's one of the most serious forms of sexism. And women who chose to support the government in denying women the right to choose, are engaging in sexism, as well.

I regret that the whole thing became a bigger deal than I intended. I have always appreciated and liked B word, and still do. But, this was just over the top, IMO, and I don't regret holding my ground on it.

First of all, my comment regarding the absence from posting was not intended as criticism. B word, as you will recall, sometime back on twitter, I messaged you regarding the fact that I had missed you and your posting on the forum and hoped things were ok. I understood from you at that time that you needed a break after 2008 to focus more on other important things. I wished you well, and sincerely meant it. No one should feel pressured to participate in this or any other online group. Commitment to family and other obligations should always come first.

My comment was about timing - in light of the vigor with which you pursued this issue, bordering on attack, IMO. You intentionally initiated an argument in order to prove your point that the forum being pro-choice would cause arguments. Obviously, taking any stand on an issue can create arguments if an individual in the group decides to argue about it to prove it causes arguments. If the forum were anti-choice, the same could be said.

You, obviously, are as tired of this exchange as I am. And, I believe we have more than exhausted the topic.

Jdona, I appreciate your comments in support of unity. I agree, and appreciate your voice of reason.

As most of us, I feel a connection to this forum and to its members, and have an emotional investment in it. That said, it does belong to HMG, and she has the right to move it into whatever direction she sees fit. As a forum, we made a commitment to fight sexism and misogyny regardless of who the target of such maltreatment might be. Of course, that was the right thing to do. I still believe we have to defend any and every female against such maltreatment. But, I believe that caution is called for in reaching out too far to the right and offering some of the female candidates political support. I've not seen them reaching back very far to the center or left to support us or our positions. Defending female candidates against sexism is a different thing from embracing their political views.

As we have said before, we PUMAs are nothing if not independent. Doing what we believe is right and just is one of the things we do best. And, I believe it's right for me to support only the politicians who represent my the political views I feel strongly about - including reproductive rights.
Yes, those of us who are pro-choice put that aside in 2008, out of necessity. Some may continue to choose to do so, and I respect their right to do so. But, it's not something I can do at this point.

As I stated in previous comments, for me, women's rights include reproductive rights. I feel strongly about this issue, and believe it's important for me, personally, to actively support it and candidates who will not seek to diminish these rights. If that runs counter to the vision of this forum, or if forum members are uncomfortable about having this issue discussed and supported by a fellow member here, I'll respect that and with regret, move on. For me, it's necessary to take a stand. Although I fully embraced the argument in 2008, I can't just continue to excuse my failure to act based on the argument that the Dems have used it to control women. I'm no longer a Democrat, anyway, and won't be pushed around by them. But, neither will I allow myself to be used by the Republicans.



-- Edited by freespirit on Sunday 21st of November 2010 01:19:02 AM

BWord, I appreciate your kind comments, and apology. The admiration and respect are mutual, and no apology needed, though, I extend mine to you, as well, if I offended you in referring to your timing and absence from forum. In all honesty, I in no way meant that as criticism. I am not as active as I would like to be because of other obligations, and certainly would not criticize others for that. I do think lines were crossed, by me, as well, though, I truly believe that this kind of very hard conversation is going to be necessary at some point in the near future. We who advocate for women's rights cannot continue to ignore the elephant in the room.

The issue of feminism and women's rights carries strong feelings, and some degree of anger, for me, and I believe, for many of us. It became clear in 2008, that we feminists had become too complacent, and had dropped the ball in fully educating younger women, and preparing them to carry on the fight for women's rights. Young women swooned over Obama and voted against Hillary Clinton, who has proven herself a real warrior in the fight for equality for all people, including women.

As we know, NOW, under the leadership of Kim Gandy threw women under the bus, and glorified the sexist, Obama. That was indeed a blow. Other groups did the same.

I believe it is imperative that women find a way to work together to fight for gender equality and women's rights. But, in so doing, I think we must ensure that the women with whom and for whom we are fighting sincerely and genuinely want to advance the cause of women, including reproductive rights.

We can't afford to have the rights we have gained eroded in order to politically advance women whose commitment to women's rights is little more than a campaign slogan.

I'm sure this kind of dialogue will be ongoing. I applaud the concept of focusing on "common ground", but maintain that in so doing, we must be vigilant to ensure that we are not being used and taken advantage of by those who want our help, but who would fail to stand up for all women and for the full scope of women's rights.

Since it apparently is the consensus of this forum that it will not take a stand on a woman's right to choose, which is, of course, your right and privilege to do, I believe that my best option is to assume a more inactive status.

I respect each and every one of you, and value you as both fellow Hillary supporters and as long time online friends. That will always be the case, and I hope the feeling is mutual.

This is an issue with which I have wrestled since 2008, and I made a promise to myself, that once that awful time was over, I would reevaluate, take a hard look at my beliefs, and determine to what extent I could compromise. In the months since then, I've felt increasingly strongly that I could not continue to ignore reproductive rights as an issue, one which I felt compelled to support. It's the right thing for ME to do. I fully understand if others don't feel as I do.

Obviously, any issue worth fighting for is one which could cause division and conflict among a given group, and the group must decide whether that issue worth the conflict. My feeling is that we have to take a stand at some point on the issues that matter to us.

I hope it will be acceptable for me to remain a member, and to check in on my friends here occasionally. But, I think that it would be less than honest of me to remain an active member and a moderator if the decision is not to take a stand for reproductive rights.

I hope you all understand and that there are no hard feelings.

Freespirit, you have amply and well summarized what I would say.  [Sorry, I have not been around much; personal matter.]

In particular, I want to emphasize this
We can't afford to have the rights we have gained eroded in order to politically advance women whose commitment to women's rights is little more than a campaign slogan.
I absolutely believe that, freespirit. Thank you for expressing that so well.

To me, women's rights are: right to vote, reproductive rights, and equal pay.  Let me  also add Equal opportunity to that list. All four are hard-earned rights.  All are essential.   And, all are women's rights because they are legislated or in case law.  All are very hard-earned.

But None of these right is fully operational (most operational is still the voting right).    This I believe is the reason for the sexism in society.  The society views women as in effect being less than men.  And, that causes the unequal treatment in the workplace, at home, and in every walk of life.

Until we achieve equality sexism will stay.

Specifically on reproductive rights - Choice will continue to happen regardles of the law in any society. Thankfully, it is indeed legal in the U.S. thanks to Roe v. Wade, and it is a hard-earned right.  I believe, reproductive rights are fundamental human rights of women.  Let us hope that the options are available to women when they need it.

I too feel that reproductive rights are core rights of women, assured by Roe v. Wade which made reference to U.S. Consitution 9th Amendment.  Thankfully involuntary servitude is not permissible in the U.S. under 14th Amendment. I hope both these amendments continue to support Roe v. Wade. 

That is my legislative/policy stance.

Morality of the decision is a woman's burden, and there are consequences regardless of direction of her choice.  Woman shall bear all immediate and downstream impact of decision - no other force that dutifully assists in EITHER DIRECTION has moral burden of the consequences. Hence, the decision is a burden that a woman needs to weigh with as many factors as possible that SHE feels are necessary to make the decision that SHE feels are the correct choice.  May the society give all kinds of options to learn and understand the issues involved, and may she make the decision that is the correct one for that I shall never prejudge nor prescribe.  And, regardless of the direction of choice, may the family and neighbors around her and the society at large be there to be that village that she may need for herself and her family.  As to the man who MAY be party to the pregnancy (if not in vitro pregnancy . . .), I hope he treats her with love, dignity and respect to give her the support and space needed to make a well considered decision, WITHOUT pressures. Any pressures from people close to the person having to make the decision would immediately create long-term issues in the family that is not good for anyone, particularly the woman.  And, may nothing in this paragraph ever become legislation, and may all of it forever remain personal and family matters.  At the point of making a choice, it becomes a decision of mega magnitude dimensions and i truly hope it does not become any more complicated than it already is.


In politics, especially in voting, or chooosing who to support, I do take position based on where an individual male or female candidate stands on with respect to  women's equality; and do not supported many women and men who do not support equality, and that will continue to be the case.  So, yes, it was a unique situation of supporting McCain as a MORE EXPERIENCED candidate who projected pro-equality stance often and moderate stance in many ways (and I had to be convinced in some ways) and where Palin happened to be his #2 pick (and then it too more convincing).  I am extremely careful in my choice for the #1 slot; for me, it really needs to be a person who is fully and completely in favor of women's equality especially in reproductive rights. 

And, I do hope that all women and bring their head and heart to the matter in who to support/vote for in considering the cause of women's equality for generations to come.  If so, many women's rights activists would be proud of us, true feminists (who may not be all feminine gender).

As to personal recommendation to a woman considering choice, I suggest this. If you are willing to love the child and put the child ahead of yourself in their formative stages, and will know that there is a 50% to 75% probability that you will substantially or fully raise the kid on your own financially, go for it.  If you cannot, put yourself first right from the get-go.  Dont bring to earth a child you will ignore and let languish and drift in the wind.  Take full responsibility. And, yes, there are 3 choice - not have, have and keep, and have and give -- and that is regardless of how you conceived, sexually, in vitro/ asexually (a possibility too!).  Your choice should be based on your full ability in all aspects to do what you are choosing with all factors considered - and the final choice is yours and yours ALONE with all its burdens of varioius kinds.  Take extra care if you cannot foresee and visualize living  the mental anguish of mothering a child and letting go of the child for whatever reason. It is a tough world for all.  Ask yourself, whether you are strong enough for that future you see down the road that you are committing yourself to among the 3 choices you have.  In the end, make peace with your choice and never second-guess yourself.  What you chose was/is/will be the BEST choice, all things considered.  That is all at individual level.

Not only do I wish for rare case of abortion, I also wish for rare case of unwanted pregnancies and even rarer case of unwanted children, because that in my view is the ultimate moral sin.  Towards that, I sincerely hope that contraceptives continue to be available as covered benefits to prevent unwanted/unplanned pregnancies that often lead to serious physical and mental health consequences...


On who I support or dont -- I do not reject any person simply because they did not support Hillary. That is a reactive position that is not conducive to women's rights.  I often read many articles to get those few nuggets of home truths on women's rights that are not well delivered elsewhere.  So, if I post something about women or by woman that has any reference to the matter of choice, it is for the women's rights message. 


Excercise of reproductive right is exercise of a fundamental right of equality, in my opinion, not to be taken lightly by any one.

Increasingly, there are far fewer moderate Republicans on all matters, especially related to women's rights, and that concerns me greatly.  And, yes where a person stands on women's rights does matter to me, a whole lot.


Like freespirit, I am inclined to hold out on blogging here a bit more given the opening post and some of the strong positions here.  At present, I am glad I never took a mod role...  If it is ok, I will continue to visit.  I consider you all my friends.

-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 22nd of November 2010 04:01:34 PM

Freespirit, I am saddened by your decision to back away from this forum, for however long you see fit. The topic got a little dicey, and you're no doubt worn out by the turmoil. But I do hope you will reconsider, and stick around. You always have something important to say in your posts, and I for one value your thoughts.