Name: Tess
Home: St. Louis
Choosing Ideology over Effectiveness
Last weekend, I went to hear a talk by Susan Frelich Appleton, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, about "The Politics of Motherhood and Reproduction."
Her lecture shed light on a question that has been baffling me ever since I started investigating the facts and figures of abortion: If social conservatives truly want to reduce abortion in the U.S, why do they pursue policies (such as criminalization) which may lead to more deaths, while ignoring factors (such as birth control) that would actually reduce the abortion rate? After all, the biggest factor in whether a woman will choose abortion is whether her pregnancy is unplanned--and 0% of prevented pregnancies end in abortion.
The professor, who studies family law, said her hypothesis for why abortion has become such a controversial issue in the U.S. is that it directly relates to a broader argument of the proper role of women in society. Her contention was that the fight against abortion is part of an ideology of "compulsory motherhood," which holds that motherhood is a woman's most important role.
At first, that claim seems radical. Is the fight against legal abortion really tied to reactionary ideas about women's place in the world? But the professor pointed out that the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis regularly attracts protesters, while the fertility clinic associated with the university does not. Embryos are destroyed both places, but the fertility clinic helps women become mothers.
She referred to several recent articles and publications, which led me to a flurry of Googling when I got home. I started with The Natural Family Manifesto, which was put out by two conservative groups in 2005 and promptly endorsed by many others. In it, the authors describe a "natural family"--"part of the created order, imprinted on our natures"--which consists of a husband, wife, and "a full quiver of children."
Parts of the Manifesto are just plain laughable to me. For example, the claim that feminists fight against the family just doesn't make sense to this feminist mother who has been happily married for nearly 9 years. The idea that God created families based on a pattern that strongly resembles the family of Victorian England seems odd in light of the diversity of families across cultures--including the polygamous families depicted in the Christian Old Testament. (Over at "You Are Dumb," you can find a funny--and very profane--rant against the Manifesto's definition of family.)
But upon closer investigation, this Manifesto, which rails against "depopulation" and people who would "define marriage out of existence," answered my question: Anti-abortion crusaders on the far right are not interested in solely reducing the number of abortions. Instead, they want to fundamentally restructure the family and society based on their religious ideology. The beliefs that lead them to oppose legal abortion also lead many of them to oppose contraception.
In a Salon.com article "The Battle to Ban Birth Control," author Priya Jain quotes Cristina Page from NARAL as saying that, for social conservatives, "The trifecta is ban contraception, ban abortion, make child care impossible." She also quotes Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice as saying that the far right sends the message that "mommy should stay home and take care of the kiddies. This is bound up in this notion of men at the head of a family, of women's identity as linked to their biological capacity, that men and women are complementary and different, that a woman's primary function is motherhood."
A 2006 New York Times article "Contra-contraception" described the conservative movement against contraception and concluded that for American social conservatives, "Their ultimate goal is not a number — the percentage of abortions or unintended pregnancies — but an ideal, a way for people to think and behave." That ideal can include foregoing contraception in marriage; one of the groups quoted in the Salon article claims that the use of birth control can "taint marriage from the beginning."
This conservative ideal has at least two big problems, though. The first is that it is based on a set of religious beliefs that many Americans do not share. The second is that it doesn't work.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, getting teenagers to sign abstinence pledges, for example, is an ineffective strategy: "[T]he majority of teens enrolled in grades 7–12 in 1995 who pledged to remain virgins until marriage had sex before marriage or by the time of a follow-up survey in 2001–2002. Furthermore, compared with those who never took a pledge, 'pledge breakers' were less likely to use condoms and to seek testing and treatment for STIs [sexually transmitted infections], and just as likely to test positive for STIs." Researchers at the National Marriage Project concluded that "traditional" values don't necessarily lead to strong marriages: "While professed traditional family values may help to generate fewer unwed births, they do not seem to provide much protection against divorce." So that means roughly 40-50% of the women who devote themselves to motherhood and to their families will end up divorced.
If the people who hold these extreme beliefs were trying to disseminate them only to their fellow church members, that would be one thing. But they are not merely saying that, for example, stay-at-home motherhood should be a valued option for women, and that we should be mindful of the importance of caretaking work; they are saying that such work should be the norm for all women. To that end, some members of the extreme right are actually fighting against improving day care centers or making sure contraception is covered by insurance. My recent reading chilled me; it is scary to realize that a small number of ideology-driven people are trying to take choices away from all Americans.
I believe that these values are not in line with those of most Americans. For those who agree with me, it is our responsibility to articulate our own values and advocate compassionate and sensible policies based on evidence, not ideology.
Her lecture shed light on a question that has been baffling me ever since I started investigating the facts and figures of abortion: If social conservatives truly want to reduce abortion in the U.S, why do they pursue policies (such as criminalization) which may lead to more deaths, while ignoring factors (such as birth control) that would actually reduce the abortion rate? After all, the biggest factor in whether a woman will choose abortion is whether her pregnancy is unplanned--and 0% of prevented pregnancies end in abortion.
The professor, who studies family law, said her hypothesis for why abortion has become such a controversial issue in the U.S. is that it directly relates to a broader argument of the proper role of women in society. Her contention was that the fight against abortion is part of an ideology of "compulsory motherhood," which holds that motherhood is a woman's most important role.
At first, that claim seems radical. Is the fight against legal abortion really tied to reactionary ideas about women's place in the world? But the professor pointed out that the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis regularly attracts protesters, while the fertility clinic associated with the university does not. Embryos are destroyed both places, but the fertility clinic helps women become mothers.
She referred to several recent articles and publications, which led me to a flurry of Googling when I got home. I started with The Natural Family Manifesto, which was put out by two conservative groups in 2005 and promptly endorsed by many others. In it, the authors describe a "natural family"--"part of the created order, imprinted on our natures"--which consists of a husband, wife, and "a full quiver of children."
Parts of the Manifesto are just plain laughable to me. For example, the claim that feminists fight against the family just doesn't make sense to this feminist mother who has been happily married for nearly 9 years. The idea that God created families based on a pattern that strongly resembles the family of Victorian England seems odd in light of the diversity of families across cultures--including the polygamous families depicted in the Christian Old Testament. (Over at "You Are Dumb," you can find a funny--and very profane--rant against the Manifesto's definition of family.)
But upon closer investigation, this Manifesto, which rails against "depopulation" and people who would "define marriage out of existence," answered my question: Anti-abortion crusaders on the far right are not interested in solely reducing the number of abortions. Instead, they want to fundamentally restructure the family and society based on their religious ideology. The beliefs that lead them to oppose legal abortion also lead many of them to oppose contraception.
In a Salon.com article "The Battle to Ban Birth Control," author Priya Jain quotes Cristina Page from NARAL as saying that, for social conservatives, "The trifecta is ban contraception, ban abortion, make child care impossible." She also quotes Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice as saying that the far right sends the message that "mommy should stay home and take care of the kiddies. This is bound up in this notion of men at the head of a family, of women's identity as linked to their biological capacity, that men and women are complementary and different, that a woman's primary function is motherhood."
A 2006 New York Times article "Contra-contraception" described the conservative movement against contraception and concluded that for American social conservatives, "Their ultimate goal is not a number — the percentage of abortions or unintended pregnancies — but an ideal, a way for people to think and behave." That ideal can include foregoing contraception in marriage; one of the groups quoted in the Salon article claims that the use of birth control can "taint marriage from the beginning."
This conservative ideal has at least two big problems, though. The first is that it is based on a set of religious beliefs that many Americans do not share. The second is that it doesn't work.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, getting teenagers to sign abstinence pledges, for example, is an ineffective strategy: "[T]he majority of teens enrolled in grades 7–12 in 1995 who pledged to remain virgins until marriage had sex before marriage or by the time of a follow-up survey in 2001–2002. Furthermore, compared with those who never took a pledge, 'pledge breakers' were less likely to use condoms and to seek testing and treatment for STIs [sexually transmitted infections], and just as likely to test positive for STIs." Researchers at the National Marriage Project concluded that "traditional" values don't necessarily lead to strong marriages: "While professed traditional family values may help to generate fewer unwed births, they do not seem to provide much protection against divorce." So that means roughly 40-50% of the women who devote themselves to motherhood and to their families will end up divorced.
If the people who hold these extreme beliefs were trying to disseminate them only to their fellow church members, that would be one thing. But they are not merely saying that, for example, stay-at-home motherhood should be a valued option for women, and that we should be mindful of the importance of caretaking work; they are saying that such work should be the norm for all women. To that end, some members of the extreme right are actually fighting against improving day care centers or making sure contraception is covered by insurance. My recent reading chilled me; it is scary to realize that a small number of ideology-driven people are trying to take choices away from all Americans.
I believe that these values are not in line with those of most Americans. For those who agree with me, it is our responsibility to articulate our own values and advocate compassionate and sensible policies based on evidence, not ideology.
posted by Tess | 11:45 AM
5 Comments:
Hi Tess,
I'm right with you on this. I got on the NARAL email list at local festival, and wow, I didn't understand how anti-contraception these righ-wing folks were. The Africa non-contraceptive "strategy" I knew about, but the attempted gag order at US campus clinics? I don't have a good idea about why they're so focused on killing all of these assorted measures (other than saying they're anti-sex), so the creation of rigid social roles seems as plausible as any. I don't understand why they're so rabid, though. I watched Unborn in the USA recently which convinced me that ground cannot be ceded to these people.
Aaron
Tess, I've been struggling with this issue (sort of.) It seems like I am raising three children most days - that the only one in my household who can parent (or clean house or organize the remodel, etc) is me. And when I bring it up to hubby, his continuous claim is he's doing better than his father.
I know this isn't directly what your blog is about, but it gives me more to think about in terms of the women staying at home. I liked the paragraph in which you said that it's not that they're advocating stay at home momming as valued option, but as the only option.
Excellent blog, thanks.
Aerin, of course I think it's a good option!
I think the challenge in our changing and pluralistic society is valuing different life paths without saying any one is the ONLY valid path. There are lots of people saying that women should stay home with their children, and others arguing that women should all go get paying jobs... but fewer thoughtful voices saying that different choices will be right for different families at different times.
If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend The Price of Motherhood, by economist Ann Crittenden. She makes an interesting argument: not that stay-at-home moms are freeloaders, but that OTHER people have been allowed to freeload (in the strict economic use of the term) off of women's unpaid labor.
Aaron (and hey, I just realized that both people who commented have names that are pronounced the same) that looks like a fascinating movie.
I loved this post, Tess. I find the different ways that people structure their work and family balance endlessly fascinating, creative and brave. I've always found it a shame that no matter how people choose to make that balancing act work, there is always someone ready to criticize. I believe that when parents find a solution that works for them, that in itself is deserving of applause. Thanks for the reminder that I could be doing more to support their choices than just applauding!
Elizabeth
Great post. You are exposing the right-wing anti-abortion program for what it really is: an effort to shore up patriarchy and force women into traditional gender roles. I think that basically the same thing could be lurking behind the right's anti-gay agenda, too, since it is the only way to understand why it would make sense for them to say that gay marriage somehow threatens marriage in general. If you think men and women play equal roles, then it's no big deal. But if you think men and women should only be allowed to play their traditional roles--and that those roles are immutable--then it truly is a threat to have a marriage that does not involve one man and one woman. It really is amazing how much of the right-wing cultural agenda can be boiled down to an effort to oppress women and control their decisions. (The great irony is that Jesus, whom so many cultural conservative claim to follow, was notable for subverting traditional views about women, often given them unusual respect and associating even with ostracized women.) I applaud you having the freedom to make a choice about being at home or not. Then you are doing it from a position of equal power and respect, not from a position of subordination. Thanks for your continued advocacy on this important set of issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home