I know the term "Red State Feminist" is confusing to many. Some may think that embracing that label, I am indicating I am a registered Republican. Actually, I am not. I have lived in red states all my life, but I'm pretty progressive.
But I'm not totally out of step with the dominant values in my local culture. Family and faith are hugely important to me. I am a Christian who is very active in her church. And I am now a full-time, stay-at-home mom, having left my professional career behind a year ago to focus more on my kids and volunteering at my church. I don't really related to "Blue State Feminism," which is why I embrace the concept of Red State Feminism though I am not a Republican.
It has been said that Blue State Feminism has been dominate in shaping the modern feminist movement. And NOW (National Organization for Women) is typically viewed as the leading organization of that movement. NOW consistently lists as one of its top priorities access to "safe and legal abortion." (See: http://now.org/about/our-issues/.)
Perhaps like many women, the clichéd labels of "pro choice" and "pro life" don't adequately describe what I think is a more complex issue. I'll explain more later, but suffice it now to say that I think that medical abortions should remain legal, but I find it a sad tragedy when women exercise that choice. As I'll explain more later, I do not judge or condemn such women. Indeed, some are coerced by their partners or families to seek abortion against their will. But I find it so sad on many levels when a woman terminates her pregnancy. And I am less conservative on this issue than many similarly situated women. As NOW is consistently viewed as being so focused on that particular issue, it alienates many family-oriented women from its organization and from feminism more broadly. To many people in red states, being a feminist largely means being indifferent to "unborn children" and rabidly protecting abortion rights.
Also a top priority of NOW in recent decades, the organization is a strong supporter of "LGBT rights." I too am a supporter of LGBT rights. But many see that as only tangentially related to feminism. It adds to the stereotype that NOW and feminism more generally are governed by lesbians. Again, that alienates many people in red states, many of whom cite deep religious beliefs for their conviction that homosexuality is a sinful choice.
Abortion and lesbian rights are so closely aligned with the cause of feminism in the minds of many red state residents. They don't necessarily think feminism can involve any other issues. So, it becomes quite predictable that feminism--or at least the blue state version of it--is DOA in red states.
Think about how narrow the potential audience for those two key issues.
Abortion is only a potential choice for women of child-bearing years. The average age for the onset of menses is 12 or 13, and the average age for a woman to go through menopause is 51. (See: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20061107/menstruation-whats-normal-for-girls and http://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/menopause.) That means that, on average, a woman could become pregnant for 38-39 years of her life time. But the average life expectancy for women is 86. (See: http://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.htm.). Thus, more than half of the life time of an average woman abortion is not even a physical possibility!
The relevance of abortion is narrowed even more because most females don't become sexually active immediately at the onset of menses. Further, contraception is widely used in the United States, which limits even more the potential for pregnancies when abortion might be considered.
I have had many close female friends over the years, a few of which have confided that they have had abortions to terminate unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. In every case, the pregnancies occurred when the women were in their teens or early twenties. They had been sexually active with people they were not prepared to marry. In several instances, the women had used a lot of alcohol and/or narcotics before realizing they were pregnant. In those situations, the decision to seek an abortion was in part due to concern that the child would otherwise be born with severe birth defects or other health problems.
Over the years, I have also had several friends share that they considered having an abortion at some point, though they did not ultimately seek one. In those situations, there were quite different commonalities. These women were older (i.e., in their 30s), happily married, healthy and comfortable financially. These women also were already mothers and loved that role. However, the consideration of selecting to terminate their fetus was prompted by prenatal test results indicating their child had severe health issues that would be a huge long-term challenge, which they were unsure they could handle given their resources and support system.
More frequently in my social circles, I have encountered women who struggle with infertility. IVF and adoption issues (including the huge costs associated with both options) have been much more prominent with the women I've known.
I flag all these points simply to note how limited appeal the issue of abortion rights is and how alienating it is to many women, particularly in red states.
Similarly limited is the appeal of LGBT rights. Sexual minorities are just that--numerical minorities. Though it is notoriously difficult to estimate the percentage of people in society who are gay, it is safe to say the number is less than 10% of the general population. And the number of lesbians tends to be smaller than the number of gay men. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States.)
While it is true that people who are not directly impacted by issues can be motivated by them, that happens less frequently and will generally less passion. One tends to get more motivated to support issues, with which one has familiarity and for which one has a personal interest. For this reason, the public's continual linkage of these two issues with feminism means that Blue State Feminism will be DOA for a long time to come.
But I'm not totally out of step with the dominant values in my local culture. Family and faith are hugely important to me. I am a Christian who is very active in her church. And I am now a full-time, stay-at-home mom, having left my professional career behind a year ago to focus more on my kids and volunteering at my church. I don't really related to "Blue State Feminism," which is why I embrace the concept of Red State Feminism though I am not a Republican.
It has been said that Blue State Feminism has been dominate in shaping the modern feminist movement. And NOW (National Organization for Women) is typically viewed as the leading organization of that movement. NOW consistently lists as one of its top priorities access to "safe and legal abortion." (See: http://now.org/about/our-issues/.)
Perhaps like many women, the clichéd labels of "pro choice" and "pro life" don't adequately describe what I think is a more complex issue. I'll explain more later, but suffice it now to say that I think that medical abortions should remain legal, but I find it a sad tragedy when women exercise that choice. As I'll explain more later, I do not judge or condemn such women. Indeed, some are coerced by their partners or families to seek abortion against their will. But I find it so sad on many levels when a woman terminates her pregnancy. And I am less conservative on this issue than many similarly situated women. As NOW is consistently viewed as being so focused on that particular issue, it alienates many family-oriented women from its organization and from feminism more broadly. To many people in red states, being a feminist largely means being indifferent to "unborn children" and rabidly protecting abortion rights.
Also a top priority of NOW in recent decades, the organization is a strong supporter of "LGBT rights." I too am a supporter of LGBT rights. But many see that as only tangentially related to feminism. It adds to the stereotype that NOW and feminism more generally are governed by lesbians. Again, that alienates many people in red states, many of whom cite deep religious beliefs for their conviction that homosexuality is a sinful choice.
Abortion and lesbian rights are so closely aligned with the cause of feminism in the minds of many red state residents. They don't necessarily think feminism can involve any other issues. So, it becomes quite predictable that feminism--or at least the blue state version of it--is DOA in red states.
Think about how narrow the potential audience for those two key issues.
Abortion is only a potential choice for women of child-bearing years. The average age for the onset of menses is 12 or 13, and the average age for a woman to go through menopause is 51. (See: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20061107/menstruation-whats-normal-for-girls and http://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/menopause.) That means that, on average, a woman could become pregnant for 38-39 years of her life time. But the average life expectancy for women is 86. (See: http://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.htm.). Thus, more than half of the life time of an average woman abortion is not even a physical possibility!
The relevance of abortion is narrowed even more because most females don't become sexually active immediately at the onset of menses. Further, contraception is widely used in the United States, which limits even more the potential for pregnancies when abortion might be considered.
I have had many close female friends over the years, a few of which have confided that they have had abortions to terminate unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. In every case, the pregnancies occurred when the women were in their teens or early twenties. They had been sexually active with people they were not prepared to marry. In several instances, the women had used a lot of alcohol and/or narcotics before realizing they were pregnant. In those situations, the decision to seek an abortion was in part due to concern that the child would otherwise be born with severe birth defects or other health problems.
Over the years, I have also had several friends share that they considered having an abortion at some point, though they did not ultimately seek one. In those situations, there were quite different commonalities. These women were older (i.e., in their 30s), happily married, healthy and comfortable financially. These women also were already mothers and loved that role. However, the consideration of selecting to terminate their fetus was prompted by prenatal test results indicating their child had severe health issues that would be a huge long-term challenge, which they were unsure they could handle given their resources and support system.
More frequently in my social circles, I have encountered women who struggle with infertility. IVF and adoption issues (including the huge costs associated with both options) have been much more prominent with the women I've known.
I flag all these points simply to note how limited appeal the issue of abortion rights is and how alienating it is to many women, particularly in red states.
Similarly limited is the appeal of LGBT rights. Sexual minorities are just that--numerical minorities. Though it is notoriously difficult to estimate the percentage of people in society who are gay, it is safe to say the number is less than 10% of the general population. And the number of lesbians tends to be smaller than the number of gay men. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States.)
While it is true that people who are not directly impacted by issues can be motivated by them, that happens less frequently and will generally less passion. One tends to get more motivated to support issues, with which one has familiarity and for which one has a personal interest. For this reason, the public's continual linkage of these two issues with feminism means that Blue State Feminism will be DOA for a long time to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment