Feminism

The recent uproar over Rep. William Todd Akin's blundering revelation of his ignorance about the issues of rape, reproduction and abortion has raised the ire of women who refuse to submit to patriarchal control of their bodies. This is a good thing. The days of middle-aged heterosexual men controlling the bodies of women and others who are sexually different from them are coming to an end. It's about time.

This morning on National Public Radio I was listening to a report on politics. A woman was interviewed about the candidates' stances on student loans for college education. She said, "For those women who may decide they want to help their children pay for their education..."  This clarified something for me. There has been an element of the new feminism which has been troubling me. 

The uproar in defense of a woman's right to control her own body is perfectly understandable. As a gay man, born in 1950, I get it. Heterosexuals have tried to control how I use my body ever since I was aware I could use it for sexual pleasure. A large segment of the heterosexual population worldwide would still control my sexuality if they could. 

The difference between my sexuality and a woman's ability to reproduce another human being is vast. My sexuality, when enjoyed privately with another consenting adult, is a free act between two developed human beings. A woman's sexuality could be seen as the same thing, obviously. The confusion sets in when female sexuality is fused with female reproductive rights. 

Part of Women's Lib in the 1960s was the declaration of women that they could enjoy their sexuality without reproducing children. In fact, many feminists of the time saw the bearing of children as counterproductive in that fight for liberation from male domination. The male models of femininity did fuse reproduction with sexuality for women, not for men. The women of earlier feminist movements defended the right of women to live a healthy childless life with dignity and respect by men and other women.

That sensibility has been lost in the new feminism, as I experience it as an observer. The new feminism has gone back to the sexuality-reproduction model. It is more conservative than previous feminist movements. It is also more fragmented and less consistent. This is a feminism of individualism and narcissistic self-determinism. It is both conformist, in the sense that women have returned to pressuring each other to reproduce, and also antisocial, in the sense that many new feminists would defend the behavior of the Octomom as her socially acceptable assertion of her feminist right to choose. This is close to being insane.

The radio commentator's words summarize what is wrong about the current feminist attitude toward reproduction: "For those women who MAY DECIDE they WANT to help their children pay for their education..." This implies that a woman's right to choose includes choosing to have children for which she feels no lifelong responsibility. This is intrinsically socially irresponsible. 

We may be primates but we have evolved to the point of overpopulation in organized societies. The intentional or unintentional production of a child into these societies by a woman is NOT instinctive propagation for a species' survival in small familial/tribal groups which share child rearing in a cohesive social culture. It is a conscious social act, with the rare exceptions of the under-aged, the raped and the mentally ill. At any time, a mother may die or become incapacitated. It is then the job of society to take on the rearing of her children.

The new feminist attitude, present on both the political Left and political Right, seems to assume that society should take on all the responsibilities of child rearing without any questions or conditions. On the Right, vocal women decry taxes as evil but are the first to declare that government is letting them down by not providing adequate education and benefits for their children. On the Left, women defend indiscriminate use of any methods used to produce children, even by women who carry STDs and genetically transmitted debilitating diseases.

I consider myself as much a feminist as a physiological man can be. I worked in a traditionally feminine profession, nursing. I demonstrated for women's rights as well as gay rights in the 1970s. However, I am also a humanist, whose practice is based in science, education and social responsibility. I believe these basic elements are essential to promoting peace and joy for all people on the planet. The vein of narcissistic self-determinism in the current feminism in the U.S. and other developed nations is troubling to me as a humanist and a feminist.