One of the freshmen in my philosophy class has a sticker on her laptop that reads “Pro-Life Feminist.” She participated in the Women’s March on Washington. She also plans to participate in Friday’s March for Life.
Another student in the same class campaigned for Hillary Clinton and served as a campus point person for the Women’s March. She’s also pro-life, and also plans to attend Friday’s March for Life.
They, like many other women who will participate in both events, see no contradiction. They’re aware that as the Women’s March organizers insisted (albeit only at the eleventh hour) there was contradiction. But in their view, the only contradiction lies in the organizers’ last-minute decision to exclude pro-life groups. After all, the march was supposed to be a celebration of diversity, open to everyone who supports women’s rights and everyone who believes that “defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.” They believe in both. They just also happen to believe that the unborn are among the marginalized.
Women’s March organizers and sponsors, like many other traditional feminists, have a very different view. In their view, the sticker on my student’s laptop is incoherent: one simply cannot support women’s rights and also be pro-life. But this only exchanges one question for another. By what litmus test do we determine who is and who isn’t a feminist? Better still, why can’t one be both feminist and pro-life?
Last October, a Slate article headline “The Future of the Pro-Life Movement,” argued convincingly that “the future of pro-life activism is young, secular and feminist.” Among several other young women, the article featured Aimee Murphy, who became pro-life at 16, when she was raped by an abusive boyfriend and faced the prospect of a possible pregnancy. She realized then that choosing an abortion would just further perpetuate the violence. Aimee not only rose above her horrific experience but founded a journal called Life Matters, “dedicated to bringing an end to aggressive violence.”
Is a sexual assault survivor who devotes her life to helping other women a feminist? If she isn’t, who is?
New Wave Feminists, a pro-life group whose Women’s March partnership was unceremoniously rescinded
The real sticking point in all of these cases, of course, is opposition to abortion. Favor restricting access to abortion in any way, and you’ll lose your feminist card. Because you can’t support women’s rights and oppose abortion. But once again, why?
At the moment I write this, I am 25 weeks pregnant. My daughter can survive outside my womb. If I were to give birth to her tonight and take her life tomorrow, I would go to jail for homicide. Yet so long as she remains inside my womb, tomorrow I can pay someone else to end her life and no one will raise an eyebrow. Can’t a reasonable person believe that if it is wrong to kill my 25-week old daughter when she is outside my womb, it is also wrong to kill her when she is inside it? Can’t one even be a feminist and think so?
When feminists exclude feminists just because they dare to think differently about abortion, they send only one message: It’s not okay to think about abortion, because it’s not okay to think. Traditional 1970s feminism has already done our thinking for us, and decided once and for all what feminism is about. The rest of us needn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. All we need to do is shut up and obey.
It all sounds so … patriarchal.
When a movement becomes rigid and dogmatic, when it becomes unable to rethink and redefine itself, it quickly becomes irrelevant. Unless feminism can learn to accommodate fresh ideas, unless it can learn to accept, if not welcome, attempts to rethink its principles, unless it can think, it will become just that.
Angela Knobel is an associate professor in the School of Philosophy at The Catholic Univeresity of America. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
