serrin foster and feminists for life

December 25, 2008

okay, so the comments from the last blog inspired me to read up on Feminists for Life, and the reading-up i did got me all hot and bothered.  first, some reading:

a fan of foster and FFL:

opposition to foster and FFL:

the wikipedia entry* for FFL:

*NOTE OF INTEREST: Sarah Palin has been a member of FFL since 2006, according to the wikipedia entry.

SO.  i am calling bullshit on FFL.  i hypothesize that this group is trying to offer up a watered down and domesticated version of the women’s rights movement and trying to give miseducated, misled women who consider themselves anti-feminists a version of feminism to call their own–in reality, this “version of feminism” is not feminism at all. 

it’s as if there were a group of african americans in the 19th century who claimed neither to be for the abolition of slavery nor for racial equality, but simply to be for a world where slaves would be treated fairly by their masters.  you cannot get to a world of racial equality without exploding the power structure of master/slave and the inequality inherent to that structure. 

how very, very NOT mary wollstonecraft.  (FFL claims to be following in wollstonecraft’s footsteps; wollstonecraft would NEVER have advocated a reliance on those in power to take care of those without power.  she thought the notion of chivalry was poisonous to women and to men.)

 the right to choose is a NECESSARY part of the road to women’s equality. 

further, FFL’s mission is built on the following fallacy: being pro-choice is being pro-abortion.  

FFL is good neither for gender equality nor for women’s rights.  FFL is not feminism.  FFL unfairly uses feminist figures and rhetoric.  FFL is MORE HARMFUL for women than abortion itself.  FFL perpetuates the kind of society that it wants to eradicate.  FFL feeds “the root causes that drive women to abortion.”  to repeat a comment i made on the last post, “the ultimate goal [of feminism, the women’s rights movement] is of course to create a world where abortion would hopefully not be necessary–where all people would be educated about sex, have access to birth control, not have to fear pregnancy by incest or rape, have 100% successful birth control, etc.; HOWEVER, since we do not live in that world yet, abortion should be an option for women with unwanted pregnancies.”

FFL has a very nice website, a 36 year history, and does refer to actual feminists in its literature.  FFL *sounds* like a group that is making a good point in a very important conversation.  FFL has the potential, as a name, as a basic IDEA, to be something good.  the goal of eradicating the need for abortion is a big yes, good, i agree, we all agree, go for it.  FFL is no good.  the way to eradicate the need for abortion is to keep abortion safe, legal, and (therefore, thereby) rare.


%d bloggers like this: