This post is, in a way, a follow-up to my "horrible news" post. It seems that the missing pregnant woman whose young son gave cryptic and disturbing remarks about her disappearance, has been found. Her "boyfriend" has been charged with two counts of murder. One report suggests that a new girlfriend of the suspect--a suspect who had a wife with a child, had a previous girlfriend who also had his child, this now-dead woman with two of his children--wanted the woman out of the way, and assisted in some way with the events that resulted in her death.
When I was in high school, I had a teacher who was very opinionated about social issues. All we had to do was think of a subject in advance and she would talk about it for the entire hour so that we could get away with not reading. (Never trust an honors class!!) We prolonged Huck Finn for an entire 9-weeks using this strategy. During one of these digressions, she remarked that she couldn't understand women who take up with a married man, assuming that he would faithful to her when he wasn't faithful to his wife. What makes her so darned special? Why does any woman think that any given unfaithful man will be faithful to her rather than another woman? Clearly, this is logic that has always remained with me. In this case, in addition, if he would commit violent acts against another former girlfriend, why should this new woman think that he would not, eventually, turn on her?
This is, on a level, an anti-feminist statement in a way, I guess. For once, I'm not really sure where feminist theory would fall in relation to this kind of situation. I mean, even if she had aborted one or both of the children (which seems like one possible feminist answer), this may have been what the father wanted, in which case, would it have been acting like a strong feminist woman to preserve one's autonomy by aborting a child (or children) that she wanted to keep but whom the father wanted to kill? It does seem that the situation of the dead, pregnant girl should be viewed with sympathy by feminists, who would see her as a victim of society that views her worth in terms of men. On the other hand, one might note (not necessarily from a feminist perspective) that in a society in which women's sexuality was viewed more restrictively and regulated more closely, she would not have been living openly with one--perhaps two--children of an married man, and so, in a sense, she would have been protected--by shame--from this horrible situation. Would social ostracism have been worse than what actually happened to her? By being sexually liberated, able to choose her own sexual partners freely without reference to social convention, she is placed in a position that has led to her death and the death of her child. On the other hand, a feminist might note that, though she seems to have been fairly independent, by returning to a man who had betrayed other women, and allowing herself to become pregnant twice (or perhaps becoming pregnant on purpose?), she was acting foolishly herself, sacrificing herself for the sake of a man. I'm not actually sure a feminist would hold that last opinion. I think she would likely be regarded as a victim of patriarchy. But haven't we moved beyond that tired argument yet?If women haven't come far enough yet (baby--Virginia Slims) that "patriarchal society" (instead of a deranged man) has to be blamed for tragedy, then what exactly has feminism accomplished? Okay, enough with the rhetorical questions, already.
A number of things disturb me about the way this case is being reported. First, that while the new baby was initially said to have been fathered by the same man as her first child (by the "suspect," that is), in subsequent reports, the baby was "perhaps" fathered by the same man--"may have been" fathered by the suspect, etc. And this was when he wasn't even a suspect! So while he had a history of impregnating various women, he was somehow entitled to his reputation. Meanwhile, the woman was missing, likely dead, and she was being represented as someone who slept around. So much for sexual liberation there! The implication was pretty clear--he may not have been involved, and she, as an unwed mother, might as well have had a different father for each child. Where were the media feminists? They weren't upholding either her reputation or her right to act as a sexually liberated woman and a strong independent mother.
Another question I had was why the 2-year-old son's references to his mother did not include references to his "father," with whom he presumably had a relationship.
Finally, the girl's family is being portrayed in a respectfully positive light, which is appropriate. But I do wonder what their true feelings were about this situation--here is their daughter, sister, whatever, pregnant for the second time with the child of a man who has a wife and two other children by two different women. Did they feel constrained by the "new" social convention that dictates that a woman choose her own expression of her sexuality when she becomes an adult (or even sooner)? Did they find nothing amiss in this relationship? Or did they express their disapproval?
The appearance of the possible accomplice, the "new girlfriend" leads to the title of the post. How can women be so stupid--for obviously worthless men? For sex? But at the same historical moment when women were told that it’s okay to make these choices, they were deprived of the frameworks that allowed them to choose morally and, in the end, to choose wisely and make choices that preserved their dignity.
5 comments:
You wonder how feminist theory would respond to this case. It wouldn't. That's why theory is theory and prectice is practice. Different feminists will respond to this case differently depending on the school of feminism they subscribe to and based on their own personal experiences with feminism. Feminists do not speak with one monolithic voice and I'm actually tired of it being insinuated that we do.
Personally (and I do consider myself a feminist though not a radical one), I feel this case is a tragedy on many many levels. You have a child who is now without a mother, a mother who was robbed of her life and the chance of being mother to her new baby daughter, and a baby who never had the chance to be born as her mother intended. While it seems to me that this woman made a poor choice in getting involved with this man, her decision to keep and raise her babies evidently without his help was her choice and a good one for her as she seemed to be thriving as a mother to her son. You are wrong in thinking that all feminists want women to get abortions; we don't. We do want women to choose the best course of action for themselves and that does not mean abortion for every woman. While birth control is encouraged among feminists, I have never seen abortion actively encouraged by anyone. I would like to take abortion out of the picture and that is why I support sex education and birth control.
Sexual liberation means different things to different women - most definitions can be supported by rational (as opposed to radical) feminists. Can a married woman be sexually liberated and faithful to her husband? Of course! Because she has chosen that form of sexual liberation for herself. It is only when she is robbed of the choice of being faithful to her husband (if she forced to do so under threat of violence or death), that she is no longer sexually liberated. Can a single woman who chooses to remain chaste consider herself sexually liberated? Yes! Again, because she has chosen this path for herself. Can a woman be faithful to her religious beliefs and still consider herself a feminist? Absoultely. Because she has chosen to allow her religious beliefs to influence her daily living - they have not been forced upon her. That is why I believe their could such thing as a feminist Catholic....now there's an idea for a blog. For many women, sexual liberation has meant experimentation and multiple sex partners. This may or may not be good for them (it usually isn't in the end) but it is a choice that these women have made. Are we to shun them for these choices? No. Are we do deny them the freedom to make these choices like they do in some radical religious countries? No. When we rob women (or any group of people) of choice and personal freedom, oppression inevitably takes root.
By the way, that last comment should be been signed "-C".
Good comments. But I have yet to read any feminist theory that would support your interpretation. THAT is the problem. Being a strong woman and being a feminist are not necessarily the same.
I also believe that women should be taught that not all choices are equal, which they are not. We all make mistakes, but only some of us choose to recognize them as mistakes. Give women choices, yes. But give them intelligent frameworks in which to decide which choices are responsible, intelligent, and dignified--otherwise, a different kind of tyranny replaces oppression: the tyranny of a malformed consciousness. This situation demonstrates just how unintelligent women can be with regards to sex--something we can all see every single day, if we choose to look at it with those eyes instead of being endlessly "accepting" of other people's choices. (And no, this doesn't undermine the tragedy of it, I just think deeper analysis is necessary.) I don't shun people who make what I consider poor decisions, but I will sure teach my children to do otherwise!! I would like to know, though--if you were her sister, would you have told her--for her own good--that her lifestyle choices were harmful to her self? Or would you have respected her choice?
Catholic feminism is only possible insofar as the term "feminist" is redefined. I think Pro-woman Catholicism is certainly possible, and that it can incorporate some of the things that are commonly credited to feminism, but feminism is a self-serving ideology, and self-serving ideologies necessarily conflict with Catholicism.
P.S.-Lots of feminists do actively encourage abortion to preserve women from what feminism dictates would be a damaging situation for their other aspirations. They just don't admit to it.
Post a Comment