I read Gloria Steinem’s interview in Buzzflash when it came out, but didn’t think it was especially fascinating; I didn’t even link to it from “Alas.” Then I read this entry at Diotima, in which Sara – one of my favorite conservative bloggers – is reduced to what can only be called sputtering incoherence by the task of responding to Steinem’s interview.
I’m not going to rebut every instance in which Sara’s points are illogical or based on a failure to comprehend Steinem’s arguments. But for example, consider this quote from Steinem, about right-wing religious activists:
Sara responds by saying that she learned from this that…
The Anglican line is an easy put-down, but it ignores the meaning of Steinem’s quote. Steinem’s quote explained in what sense modern religious conservatives are like 17th century Anglicans; both groups “cite unproveable arguments — arguments that take place in heaven and life after death — as reasons why we should obey them now.”
Steinem’s statement is a simplification, but also fundamentally correct. Conservative intellectuals like Sara aren’t what’s driving the Republicans to oppose same-sex marriage (actually, Sara favors same-sex marriage) and reproductive rights. In those areas, the 800-pound gorilla in the Republican party is the religious right. And those folks use unprovable arguments all the time, just as Ms. Steinem said.
Yesterday, Rhode Island Representative Victor Moffitt (R) justified his anti-gay-marriage bill by saying “The sanctity of marriage needs to be defined, protected. I am a Catholic. I view marriage as a sacrament.” How can one argue with that? Mr. Moffitt has a right to his beliefs, and to vote based on his beliefs. Nonetheless, he’s clearly attempting to use the law to force all Rhode Islanders to obey his religious beliefs; and that’s typical behavior from religious conservatives in America today, on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to reproductive rights to “Terri’s law.”
If Sara actually believes that folks like Representative Moffitt are a scare tactic made up by feminists – or if she believes that they are not a powerful force in the Republican party – then I’d say that Sara exhibits less understanding of the modern conservative movement than Ms. Steinem does.
Here’s another Steinem quote with Sara’s response:
Sara at Diotima: Sputter. Read that again. “If he is elected [not “re-elected”] in 2004, abortion will be criminalized in this country.” What kind of alternate universe is this woman living it?!?! We’re going to injure and kill millions of women? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years? Rrrrraaggrrrr! We LOST on Title IX! They won! This woman is on crack! She’s completely lost it!
Clearly Sara’s wacked-out tone here is tongue-in-cheek, but her logic is just as wacky.
First, Sara implies that it’s insane to think that a Bush re-election might lead to criminalization of abortion. Why? It’s certainly possible (I’d say likely) that both O’Connor and Stevens will retire from the Supreme Court in the four-year period following the 2004 election, and if so Bush might intend to choose anti-Roe justices to fill those seats. The result of this would almost certainly be criminalization of abortion in much of the USA.
This is not an obscure scenario; the Buzzflash interviewer brings it up during Steinem’s interview. Nor is it so implausible that only an insane person could worry about it.
And yes, feminists won on Title IX. But there is a continuous movement among conservatives to water-down or overturn Title IX; it’s quite reasonable for Steinem to think that Title IX and other feminist victories will be “endangered” by continuing Republican dominance in politics.
Finally, I am puzzled – and appalled – by this bit of total illogic from Sara: “We’re going to injure and kill millions of women? What about the millions of unborn babies we’ve killed right here in the past 31 years?”
Is Sara honestly saying that because she finds abortion morally wrong, injuring and killing millions of women is somehow unimportant or justifiable?
When Steinem referred to the withdrawal of funding for family planning and AIDS prevention, I took that as a reference to the way pro-lifers and the Bush administration blocked $34 million earmarked for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA for short – yes, I know the initials don’t match up, complain to the UN). $34 million is almost 15% of UNFPA’s total funding.
A few facts about UNFPA: UNFPA does not provide support for abortions or abortion-related activities anywhere in the world. In fact, they prevent abortion, by providing family planning services and birth control in developing countries all over the world. They also help prevent AIDS, provide medical care which makes pregnancy and childbirth safer for mothers and babies, and work to prevent and treat obstetric fistulas. (More on what UNFPA does here).
According to UNFPA, “UNFPA estimates that $34 million applied to family planning programmes could prevent some 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths annually worldwide.” That’s only deaths – the total would presumably be much higher if non-fatal conditions such as fistulas were included.
Why was UNPFA defunded? Because some US pro-lifers accused UNPFA of supporting coercive abortions in China. Several independent fact-finding missions – including one from the Bush administration – have refuted this claim. (A more recent group of US religious scholars and ethicists, organized by Catholics for Choice, came to the same conclusion – pdf file).
I understand that to pro-lifers, there is little or no difference between the death of an 8-week embryo and the death of an adult woman. However, how can concern for unborn children possibly justify defunding an agency that doesn’t provide abortions, helps women and reduces the need for abortion?
Sara seems to feel that while abortion is legal in the US, it’s somehow ridiculous for Steinem to object to pro-life attacks on health care for women in the third world. Sara’s position (if it is indeed her position, and not just a momentary flash of anger) is unsupportable and immoral; the deaths of unborn fetuses in the US do not justify deaths and injuries to women in the third world.
Illogical as Sara’s statement is, it’s also typical of the pro-life movement in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, not a single pro-life organization in the US – not even the pro-life “feminists” – objected to the defunding of UNFPA. This calls into question the pro-life leadership’s commitment to opposing abortion – apparently an agency that reduces abortion through non-coercive needs, like UNFPA, is seen as the enemy by pro-life organizations.
Actually, pro-lifers who don’t think Bush’s election (not, as Sara correctly points out, “re-election”) will lead to overturning Roe would be well advised to vote for the Democrat instead. By reauthorizing funding for UNFPA (which had been cut off under Reagan), Bill Clinton probably prevented more abortions than President Bush ever has.
* * *
More generally, I think part of Sara’s difficulty with Steinem is due to the cultural difference between the IWF and feminism. Gloria Steinem is a type of leader that the IWF has never had. Steinem isn’t an academic or a think-tanker; she’s a popular leader and organizer. That’s a kind of leadership that’s completely foreign to the IWF culture, because they’ve never had any popular support.
Sara thinks that Steinem should embarrass feminists because she says something silly in an interview (and I admit, Steinem’s quasi-Marxist interpretation of the pro-life movement was cringeworthy). But that completely misses the point – Steinem’s accomplishments and contribution to feminism has primarily been as an organizer, not as a theorist. As an organizer, Steinem contributed to a huge advancement of feminism, equality and justice in the USA; on balance, a mistaken statement about pro-lifers in an obscure interview is insignificant.
[Edited on 2-16-04 to correct typos, grammer and to make it slightly less snippy.].
Why are there no dedicated left orgs like that? In the UK there's the Men and Boys Coalition. In the…