Skip to main content

Feminism (part one)

So a while back I started writing a blog about feminism and what it means to me. I shelved it because it's the kind of thing you want to get right. That one was a more general, and at times light hearted (because it's ok to be light hearted and feminist too)

However something happened this week that made me want to write a more serious version of it, and one that touches on a couple of more serious issues. This is not a personal attack on anyone who was involved in the discussion that elicited this blog, rather see this blog as my 'right of reply' maybe.

This week I heard Feminism equated with anti-abortion and I said quite simply 'That is not feminism as I understand it' Feminism respects the right of an individual to be anti-abortion in their personal life, for whatever reasons they feel. Feminism would not however advocate anti-abortion as a general stance as this removes a woman's right to choose and is as much oppression as men telling women they cannot have abortions.

The feminist stance must always be pro-choice on the marco level. The key is in that second word 'CHOICE' this includes a woman's personal prerogative to take an anti abortion stance but for themselves alone. They may express their opinion as to why abortion is 'wrong' or simply not for them, but they cannot in the name of Feminism or anything else claim that for all other women. If it is a religious issue then of course they can say 'because of my particular belief for me abortion is not right' but they should impose that on others and call it feminism. Likewise I disagree with imposing your own religious beliefs on those of other faiths (for the moment keeping within abortion) if your faith forbids abortion, and you abide by that aspect of that faith. Fine, I respect that, I may challenge if invited in discussion this and any other aspect of faith that came up for discussion, but I respect that as a person's religious and personal choice. If a person tells me that because their faith forbids it, then I must also not do so even though I am not of that faith then it becomes problematic.

The second aspect of 'Pro-Choice' is again emphasis  on that second word, CHOICE. No woman, I imagine, or make a reasonable guess (as I cannot claim really to speak for all women) no woman would be pro-abortion.

I was told this morning I do not value life. I do value life, that is why I am pro-choice. I believe in the value of a mother's life above all things and that is also the medical approach to pregnancy birth and abortion. I cannot in good conscience agree with any moral, social or yes religious stance that would let a mother die for her unborn baby if something could be done to save her life. Even if, in the most tragic of circumstances that means the loss of the baby.

I also believe that a Mother's life as priority extends beyond that of literal life or death situations. There are many complex reasons why a woman would seek abortion not all of them directly medical. It is not my place unless I am that woman or her doctor to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't do in that situation. And that is what Feminism means in this situation. The choice should be there for a woman, and nobody woman or man should interfere.

I am shocked that in 2013 I live in a world where Wendy Davis had to stand on the floor of the Texas Capitol for nearly 13 hours to defend women's right to abortion. In Britain, where I am thankfully there are better protections, better laws in place and a better healthcare systems that allows on the whole good and safe access. What is not better is the judgement women face.

And it's that judgement that isn't feminist. I respect any women who when faced with a difficult decision about pregnancy decides that abortion isn't for her. Likewise I respect any woman who decides that, after much deliberation and careful thought, that yes abortion will be the best option. That is what pro-choice means. That is what feminism means here also.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Theatre Fangirls (here we go again)

There's some arguments that come around and you think 'really? we're still talking about this?' but also you're not really surprised.

So when it was annoucned Tom Hiddleston was teaming up with Kenneth Brannagh for a production of Hamlet, it was inevitable that the cries of  'Silly fangirls' began. Once again we're confronted with comments that girls 'Only want to see it because he's in it' and 'Aren't interested in the play'.

And because I am a woman, therefore incapable of thinking of him other than in terms of his looks....here he above with a cat looking cute.

But just like Mr H there is both petting a cat, reading a newspaper and looking brooding, I'd like to point out that it's entierly possible to be interested in more than one aspect of a thing at the same time. And secondly I say so what the audience is just there to look at his cheekbones?

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Hiddles is a damn good ac…

Why Elliott & Harper is the company I've been waiting for

I can never resist a good (bad) pun in a title. As the first production from Elliott & Harper opens its doors for previews tonight, it’s worth pausing to think what this new production company means and why indeed we need more like it. Something of a ‘power house’ company formed of Marianne Elliott and Chris Harper. Both coming from the National Theatre- as Director and Producer respectively- there’s a real understanding of both the craft of theatre and the audiences that do- and don’t- come to it there. And theatre made by and produced by theatre people, in the commercial realm. That’s potentially very exciting.








Firstly, the act of two theatre people who really love theatre, really understand theatre both from an audience point of view and an artistic point of view. Secondly, one of the UK’s best directors striking out on her own to make theatre on her own terms. Thirdly, and you bet it’s an important factor, a woman artistic director. It’s all exciting, and has the potential, …

Angels at the National (a reflection before the review)

I had to do a Kushner and give this post a long subtitle.

When I called my PhD thesis "Angels at the National" (I write terrible titles I know) I never thought I'd be able to say it again. Of course, the Gods like to have a laugh at my expense so mere months after I bound the copy, Rufus Norris and Marianne Elliot got together and decided that I clearly hadn't had enough to write about. 


But how does it feel to have the thing that has lived in your head for so long, back, brought to life in front of you? As much as I love the plays, I'm also conditioned to be hyper critical. I know every line (I amazed/freaked out Elliot herself with my ability to know exact quotations on demand). And of course, I have my own expectations about how it should be. How then would it feel to go back? 



At the end of Part 1 I found myself leaning on the railings by the Thames, trying to compose myself and my thoughts enough to move. At the end of Part 2, I'm sure I had forgotten how …