Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca  Luker (1984, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood) writes:
... for pro-life women the traditional division of life into separate male roles and female roles still works, but for pro-choice women it does not. Having made a commitment to the traditional female roles of wife, mother, and homemaker, pro-life women are limited in those kinds of resources-education, class status, recent occupational experiences- they would need to compete in what has traditionally been a male sphere, namely the paid labour force. The average pro-choice woman, in contrast is comparatively well endowed in exactly these resources. |
Quote:
|
Whilst I find Felicity's ability to say nothing a real marvel, it would be nice if we kept on topic. I'm interested in either pro or anti-feminist comment that can evaluate Luker's stance.
|
The dichotomy of Ten's situation and my situation, and our respective positions on the issue Luker presents,
IS a comment that evaluates the merit of his stance.
She a self-proclaimed dirt-poor, eighth-grade educated, pro-choicer. I'm a upper-middle-class, Master's degreed, anti-contraception pro-lifer. We two are walking counter arguments.
Quote:
|
To what extent can we agree with his summary that whilst "on the surface it is the embryo's fate which seems to be at stake, the abortion debate is actually about the meaning of women's lives", with less educated women turning to their domestic and maternal roles for satisfaction?
|
Again--the conclusion is bull****. The pro-choice position undermines women's inherent dignity, attempts to quash the value of feminine attributes in favor of attributes that are traditionally male. The underlying assumption is that men are better equipped for success in our society and so the view is pressed upon women that the only way they can succeed is by being more like men. How is that egalitarian or better for WOMEN? It is, in fact, misogynistic!
Again--Ten is a great example of this so-called "forward thinking" (from 1984
) She has bought into this line of bull**** right along with most of society and what does she have to show for it? Papa pays for her insurance when the public dole doesn't. She lives in more than humble quarters and supposedly works all the time (but Daddy still has to drive her there because she lacks a vehicle). She spent her youth prostituting her body for the lascivious pleasures of men who valued her only as a means of visual stimulation so they could jerk-off in a broom closet. And, she is reduced to acquiring her families under garments from the local Laundromat's unattended dryers! What awesome dignity she proclaims by the example of her life! What a poster-girl for Luker's thesis!
She obviously has a brain, but the oppressive mantra of "female bad--male good" that has become society's avatar had reduced her to a state of helplessness. She CAN'T be male and can't imagine that what is inherently female is dignified. That is the message that has been subtly pressed upon her and other's like her--you can NEVER be what is "good" because you are a woman. Excuse me, what I believe is that what is "woman" IS good. It is not the "same" as man--and that is part of what makes it good. When womanhood--and all that that means--is valued by women themselves and by men in society, only THEN are women free from patriarchal dominance. Instead of lamenting the poor plight of the pro-lifer with many children (me!)--you should be encouraging Ten to get an education and contribute to her own betterment and the betterment of society! How ironic.
Here is a link to where my particular views on this matter have been expressed in the past:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/469225-post211.html (Solutions) http://www.debatepolitics.com/469458-post226.html (Solutions) http://www.debatepolitics.com/469578-post230.html (Solutions)