Femagination » Conservatives

Why Do We Put Up With This??

Ellen Keim — Wed, 12 May 2010 10:00:44 +0000

It’s not that O’Reilly is a conservative—it’s that he’s a nasty conservative. I was appalled by his behavior in this video. Is that the kind of role model we want for our children? One woman wrote in and asked him that very question because of the way that he says “Shut up” so often. His answer: “I’ve only said it once.”

I’m surprised that conservatives, most of whom I’m sure are caring people with traditional values (like the importance of being courteous), will put up with this. Why is he still on the air?

The QuiverFull Movement: Family Non-Planning

Ellen Keim — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:11:34 +0000

You would have to be on a desert island to not know about the Duggar family who have been showcased on The Learning Channel (TLC). Jim Bob and Michelle have more than replaced themselves in this crowded world by adding 19 children to it. Of course, in some parts of the world, 19 isn’t unheard of. (And get this, the record number of children born to one woman is 69!*) But it’s rarity for the U.S.

What makes the Duggars particularly noteworthy is the reason they have so many children: They belong to the QuiverFull movement, which believes that it is God’s will for a woman to have as many children as she is able to. Contraception, even natural family planning, is a sin. (There’s also a group called Blessed Arrows which is for those who have been sterilized where they can “make amends for their sin” by getting reversals.)

Devotees of the QuiverFull movement teach that children are a blessing from God and that attempting to avoid a pregnancy is a subversion of God’s will. Everything is in God’s hands: the health of the mother or baby, the emotional and financial resources necessary to support another child, and the “so-called” problems of over-population and over-consumption. Obviously, they are against abortion, which puts them at odds with most feminists. That’s not the only thing that alarms feminists, however. They also preach that the man is the head of the household and the wife is to be submissive to him in all things. They blame all the ills of society on women wanting their own way, especially over their own bodies, which are meant to be a “living sacrifice” to God.

I thought four children were plenty. I can’t imagine how I would have managed with more. (I barely managed with four.) The problem with the QuiverFull ideology is a corollary of what it teaches: if you do not trust God for everything, you’re not much of a believer. You may not even be a “true” Christian. I see nothing wrong with seeing children as a blessing from God. But don’t ask me to prove that I’m a Christian by laying my health and the well-being of my family at the altar of complete submission. I believe that God means for us to use the reasoning powers He gave us to make decisions in our lives.

Needless to say, there are critics. One of the most enlightening is Vyckie Garrison of the web site No Longer Qivering (“There is no ‘you’ in quivering”). Vyckie, who has seven children but is no longer a part of the QuiverFull movement, is now working on a book, but don’t wait for it: check out her site now. She has plenty to say about “those who ruthlessly engender fear and dissatisfaction so they can offer their products as the remedy for the very malady which they themselves created.” QuiverFull adherents don’t usually go so far as to say that you’ll go to Hell if you practice birth control, but they certainly cause spiritual angst among their would-be followers. As Garrison puts it: “With promises of protection, security and ultimate victory, peddlers of ‘family values’ manufactured a culture war, and capitalized on our fears.”

If you read “Ten Great Reasons to Have Another Child” from the QuiverFull web site, you’ll get an idea of the mentality that fuels the QuiverFull movement. I had to scratch my head over #4: Have another child to help end abortion. The reasoning? “The more children there are in society, the more pro-life that society will become, and the easier it will be for the great evil of abortion to be eradicated once and for all. ” Right.

I agree that our society needs to become more child-friendly, but I don’t agree that having more children will make it so. And I don’t disagree with the notion that life is sacred. But doesn’t that mean that we should weigh the bringing of new life into the world carefully and not over-do it just for the sake of a short-sighted policy that says that having more children will solve all of society’s ills?

Women are dying around the world because of unrestricted child-bearing. And their babies often die, too. Wouldn’t controlling ourselves, moderation and careful family planning do more to protect those lives than forcing women’s bodies to go to the limit just for the sake of procreation?

Is “A Marriage Agreement” Still Needed?

Ellen Keim — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:52:41 +0000

The 50-50 Split?

In 1970 Alix Kates Shulman wrote an essay titled “A Marriage Agreement” and instantly became one of the voices of the burgeoning Women’s Liberation Movement. She was ten years into her second marriage when she came up with a set of rules that she and her husband agreed upon to make their relationship more equitable. At the time the idea of sharing housekeeping and child rearing on a 50-50 basis “was so outrageous that the piece appeared in many magazines including New York, Ms., Redbook and Life, which gave it a six-page spread, and was attacked by Norman Mailer, S.I. Hayakawa, and Russell Baker, among others.” (p.163, Alix Kates Shulman, Women on Divorce .)

In the essay, Shulman wrote that “Before we made our agreement I had never been able to find the time to [write]. Over the past two years I’ve written three children’s books, a biography and a novel and edited a collection of writings. Without our agreement I would never have been able to do this.”

Ironically (or inevitably?), Shulman’s marriage ended after 25 years. Was it the 50-50 split that did it? There are those who would have us believe that Shulman’s feminist principles are what doomed her marriage. After all, before the feminist movement, women were happy unselfishly giving up their lives to take care of home and family. Weren’t they?

These days it is a given that women have the right to pursue their interests–as long as it doesn’t interfere with their responsibilities at home. This is what conservatives and traditionalists (read: “anti-feminists”) would have us believe. And yet most women, even if they don’t identify as feminists, know that they’re not being treated fairly. Why shouldn’t their husbands and boyfriends shoulder as much of the chores as they do? Why should women be the only ones who are blamed if the house isn’t a home and the children aren’t well-adjusted?

Even among couples who attempt to share the responsibilities of marriage equally, the housekeeping and child rearing rests more on the woman’s shoulders than it does on the man’s, even though both are out earning a living. Many young women have expressed their anger with Second Wave feminists’ assurances that a woman can have it all. They’d be glad, they profess, to be back in the home full-time, if only to relieve the pressure of having to work and take care of the home and children anyway. Lisa Belkin called this the “Opt-Out Revolution” in a 2003 New York Times article of the same name. Apparently, young women who were groomed for careers are opting out to stay home with their children.

It’s not clear how much of a phenomenon this is. But what is clear is that something has got to give. These young mothers will find their opportunities limited when and if they return to the workforce. Their Social Security benefits will be less than their husbands’ because they didn’t work as much over their life spans. And that’s not even taking into account the talents that go unused when women eschew careers for home-making.

[Let me say here that there is nothing wrong with being a homemaker--unless the homemaker in question wants more out of life. If her partner really loves her, he (or she) should make it possible for her to explore all her options. No woman should have to take on more than her share of the household and familial duties.]

Shulman writes today:

“["A Marriage Contract's"] limited success is hardly surprising, given the economic, social, and psychological arrangements that continue to impede equality, in marriage and out…Probably not until the polity is more child- and woman-friendly, not until men and women are equally valued – economically and otherwise – not until free or low-cost quality childcare is universally available, will the ideal of equality in marriage be other than radical.” (Shulman’s complete remarks here.)

The Nasty “L” Word: Liberal

Ellen Keim — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:11 +0000

A recent Gallup poll confirms that people in U.S. are increasingly identifying with a conservative ideology: 40% as opposed to 36% with a moderate ideology and only 21% with a liberal one. This may help to explain why so few people identify with feminism: it, too, is seen as liberal.

Why is it that liberals are so maligned (and not just now, or just in this society)? A liberal is a person who is not afraid of change. Maybe that’s what’s so threatening, because most people are afraid of change, even change for the better. We can see that in the health care debate taking place right now. Another Gallup poll lists 10 reasons why Americans are skeptical about health care reform, but the bottom line is, they don’t want to trade what they know for what they don’t know. They automatically assume that any change will be for the worse.

I also see a liberal as someone who is generous. (In fact, that’s one of the definitions of “liberal.”) That, too, is part of the problem: conservatives and moderates don’t like the idea of giving anything away for free and with no accountability. But just because liberals side with unpopular causes like public assistance and immigration reform doesn’t mean that they don’t care how these things are paid for or how they are accomplished. They just happen to believe that it is the responsibility of those who are better off to help those who are unfortunate. Funny how that lines up with the Christian message and yet so many Christians identify as conservatives. (See, however, the Sojourners web site for an example of Christians who believe that they are mandated to work for social justice.)

“Bleeding heart liberals” is a phrase you hear a lot among conservatives, as if it is a bad thing to think with your heart. Liberals believe in rehabilitation; conservatives believe in punishment. Liberals are willing to look at all sides of an issue; conservatives stick to what has been true in the past. Liberals want to invite everyone to the table; conservatives are more comfortable being with like-minded individuals. To a liberal, Truth is a complicated concept; to a conservative it is black and white, period.

Most conservatives define liberals by the causes they support: pacifism, reproductive rights, gay marriage, health care and immigration reform, abortion, for example. But you can be a liberal and be against abortion personally; you’re just reluctant to make other people’s choices for them. Conservatives think that they know best and that they should be able to dictate what others have a right to do or not do. Feminism is considered to be a liberal philosophy because it encourages people to think for themselves.

The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that few people are all one ideology or another. I’m a moderate about many things, even a conservative about some, but I’m predominantly liberal. Because I believe in acting, not reacting; in generosity, not stinginess; in openness not protectiveness; in doing at least some listening, not doing all the talking; in well-rounded argument not argument tied to old ideas; in diplomacy first, not fighting; in making changes if necessary not sticking to the old just because it’s comfortable.

I believe that all citizens should have the same rights and each have all the rights that are possible; I even defend the rights of those I don’t agree with.

Can a conservative say the same?

An Answer to Conservatives

Ellen Keim — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:01:28 +0000

“Feminists misled us! They told us we could have it all! And you can’t; it’s just too hard to juggle child-raising, housework, relationships and a career. Something has got to give.”

I’ve read this complaint over and over from many young women today. While I empathize with their dilemma–because I’ve lived it–I wish they would quit their bitchin.’ At least they have choices. No one is telling them that they have to do all of it to be a modern woman or feminist. What feminists are saying is that they have a right to pursue any course they want to. And more than that, that society has an obligation to help them to do so.

This is where the average feminist parts company with the average conservative. Conservatives run the gamut from those who think that women should stay in the home to those who insist that a woman can do anything–as long as she does it on her own. They don’t think society is obligated to help them. They definitely don’t agree with the feminist slogan that “the personal is political.” These are the conservative women (Palin comes to mind) who contend that feminists should quit their bitchin’ and just get out there and do it themselves.

Feminists and liberals (and yes, those are often one and the same) believe that government and legislation can be powerful tools for change. They see their job as that of “identifiers.” That is, they exist to point out where society is off the rails as far as women are concerned. And they lobby legislators and politicians to do something about that. To lead the vanguard, so to speak. Conservatives believe that government should stay out of their business and that the status quo shouldn’t be changed until it is good and ready to be changed. In other words, until the status quo has changed on its own.

What conservatives fail to take note of is that the status quo is not homogeneous. There is no one paradigm that fits all women’s situations. I admit that feminists have been bad about this as well. They have too often assumed that all women want to “have it all” and haven’t taken into consideration that some women don’t want to work outside of the home, or to have abortions (or even use contraception) or to remain single.

But it’s not true that feminism is not concerned about the SAHM (stay-at-home mom). Being a SAHM doesn’t mean that a woman shouldn’t still have all the rights and options that men have. What if she does want to go to work someday? What if she has to? And what about issues like health care for herself and her children?

Besides, what kind of life does she want her daughters to have?

One thing that makes it so difficult to define feminism these days is that there are a lot of conservatives who have the same goals as feminists, but won’t identify themselves as such. They want to retain their femininity (because we all know that feminists are man-like in one way or another). They’re afraid of what men would think of them if they called themselves feminists.

Women have to stop worrying about what men think of them. That’s the bottom line for feminists. And a stumbling block for conservatives.