Is It Time We Stopped Saying 'Feminist' and Started Saying 'Eugenicist'?
From my friend Bethany Mandel at Commentary, "Dems See Women as Objects, Not Voters":
At the Democratic Convention this week in Charlotte, we’ve learned what mainstream feminism has become. What was once a movement to fight for equality for women in every sector of society has somehow turned into a parody of itself. Since the feminist movement began in the mid-1800s, feminists strove to move past the era where women were seen merely as sexual and reproductive objects. These feminists fought for women to have roles outside of their marriages and their homes, to have equal opportunities in education, the workplace and the political arena.
Cut to Charlotte in early September 2012 and these “feminists” are representing themselves solely as human beings with female reproductive organs. At the DNC this week, women are promoting the Democratic agenda by walking around the convention wearing pins that read “I’m a slut and I vote” in addition to dressing up in costume as birth control dispensers and vaginas. These female reproductive organs, devoid of any other identifying characteristics, are duty-bound to vote for Democrats in order to protect themselves from government (while simultaneously demanding governmental involvement in their reproductive choices).
I thought to just instant message Bethany to tell her about this book that I started reading the other day, but then it seemed to make sense to just throw it out as a blog post instead because I'm sure there are commenters much more versed in this subject than I am who can provide their own recommendations:
I used to think it strange that my leftist friends who were the most outspoken about abortion "rights" and their own promiscuous sex lives were also loud about worrying about overpopulation and the proliferation of unwanted poor babies cursed to miserable lives. But when we understand Margaret Sanger's ideology as institutionalized within the platform of the Democratic Party then suddenly it comes into focus how the two subjects of hedonism and eugenics would be related in today's progressives. "Feminism" and "women's rights" and "coat-hangers" were just the cups of the shell game distracting guilty, do-gooder "liberals" from Sanger's eugenic utopianism. Here's an excerpt from page 14 that seems relevant today:
Hmm... "Thus the working classes are pressured to copy the particular reproductive choices of society's elite."...
Now why might Valerie Jarrett be so adamant about making sure that Catholic institutions pay for their employees' abortions and contraception?
Is this really about "empowering women," or is it about making sure fewer poor minority women are born in the first place?
Related this morning at the Daily Beast, Jesse Ellison reviews Jessica Valenti's new book Why Have Kids? and comes up unfulfilled:
The ultimate conclusion that Valenti comes to goes like this: “The truth about parenting is that the reality of our lives needs to be enough.” This line is repeated both in the book’s conclusion and its promotional materials. But it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not to have children. It doesn’t actually tell us much of anything at all.
It’s also a line, and a book, that makes me think about what my friends have described as a lack of mental clarity experienced during their own pregnancies, and a fuzziness of thought that comes from the lack of sleep after having given birth. It reminds me of my own ambivalence when it comes to having children. And it makes it hard not to think that the book would have been much more convincing if she’d been asking the question—Why Have Kids?—not as a new mom herself, but as a young woman trying to decide whether or not to become one.
Last week PJ Media's New York editor David Steinberg offered a thoughtful essay on persuading those who are sitting on the fence over a related question, The Transitional Voter: Winning the Actual ‘Bitter Clingers’:
I suspect that for many considering conservatism in 2012, the whole thing comes down to abortion. So let’s talk abortion. (Bright folks disagree on this, but I am not convinced cowardice on abortion, or any other plank of conservatism, is advisable. Conservatism is still a mystery to most leftists, whereas Reaganian, Ryanian, Breitbartian presentations of reason are our greatest communication successes.)
Sooner or later, Romney and Ryan should expound upon “I believe life starts at conception” and must discuss the logic and rationality, even beauty of a pro-life stance. I think this springs the dam. Even those not yet ready to consider being pro-life will feel comfortable voting Republican if they can respect pro-lifers enough that fiscal and foreign policy conservatism leapfrog Roe on their issue hierarchy. Call me crazy, but a pro-life shot across the bow starts a preference cascade, and a country in transition.
How about that: prescribing unapologetic, proud conservatism, using reason to win the country rather than catering to bigoted fears. The latter tactic has never, to my knowledge, won anything
The answer to Jesse Ellison's question that she's struggling with -- "Why Have Kids?" -- is the same as the question "Why not permit partial birth abortions, infanticide and gendercide?" (And it's another plank of the "unapologetic, proud conservatism.")
The only answer that makes sense is because a Higher Power exists, has created every human being in its image, and has called on us to marry and have children, and treat each other ethically. Otherwise, having children is a wholly irrational act, all moral judgments are relative, and we all might as well live hedonist-bohemian lives using abortion-as-contraception like Margaret Sanger wanted.
Related at PJ Lifestyle: