RE: Re: Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
Anyone remember the Reproductive Rights National Network or R2N2 as us vets from NAM called it then in the 80's? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Reproductive+Rights+National+Network%22btnG=Google+Searchhl=enie=utf-8oe=utf-8 Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Diane Monaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2/24/02 5:22:27 PM Rakesh wrote: Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). Plus two excerpts from the amazon.com reviews: From Publishers Weekly; Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. From Booklist: Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Rakesh, I apologize for not being able to get this post out before you unsubbed...and I will certainly miss your posts. But for what it's worth, I have always felt uncomfortable with the movement away from rights to choice during the 1980s. But I'm sure it is no surprise that this post Roe v. Wade shift during the 1980s occurred when the so-called conservative feminists surfaced (or were created) to redefine the issues. I just heard a Christina Hoff Sommers (author of Who Stole Feminism?) lecture the other day where she said in virtually the same breath that she is a feminist and women are no longer oppressed in the US. Hmmm? As far as I know, the definition of feminism hasn't changed: a movement that works toward achieving equal rights for women and men. But when I look at the demographic composition of upper agenda setting elites, e.g., Congressional Committee chairs, I see a distinct absence of women (or color). Well, if relations are not oppressed along gender lines, how would this oddity come about? What is the probability that this would happen on its own? Anyway, I think it was the anti-feminist sector that attempted to steal feminism. And I do agree with Solinger that it was a mistake for feminists to move away from the rights argument. But it's of course not too late and NARAL stands ready to enter as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- hey notice the rights there! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Best, Diane
Re: Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
Rakesh wrote: Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). Plus two excerpts from the amazon.com reviews: From Publishers Weekly; Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. From Booklist: Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Rakesh, I apologize for not being able to get this post out before you unsubbed...and I will certainly miss your posts. But for what it's worth, I have always felt uncomfortable with the movement away from rights to choice during the 1980s. But I'm sure it is no surprise that this post Roe v. Wade shift during the 1980s occurred when the so-called conservative feminists surfaced (or were created) to redefine the issues. I just heard a Christina Hoff Sommers (author of Who Stole Feminism?) lecture the other day where she said in virtually the same breath that she is a feminist and women are no longer oppressed in the US. Hmmm? As far as I know, the definition of feminism hasn't changed: a movement that works toward achieving equal rights for women and men. But when I look at the demographic composition of upper agenda setting elites, e.g., Congressional Committee chairs, I see a distinct absence of women (or color). Well, if relations are not oppressed along gender lines, how would this oddity come about? What is the probability that this would happen on its own? Anyway, I think it was the anti-feminist sector that attempted to steal feminism. And I do agree with Solinger that it was a mistake for feminists to move away from the rights argument. But it's of course not too late and NARAL stands ready to enter as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- hey notice the rights there! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Best, Diane
Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
[Please forward to your pro-choice friends in Ohio] Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). I have only read Solinger's first book Wake Up Little Susie which is excellent and disturbing. Here are the amazon.com reviews of the last book. Rakesh Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States is a thorough feminist history of public policy on abortion since Roe v. Wade, as well as a reconsideration of recent political strategy. Rickie Solinger's third book on reproductive rights hinges on a crucial semantic shift in the 1970s from abortion rights to the softer, less direct choice and pro-choice, itself an attempt to shake off the awkward pro-abortion tag. While rights are undeniable, Solinger asserts, choice is a market-driven concept. Historical distinctions between women of color and white women, between poor and middle-class women, have been reproduced and institutionalized in the era of choice, she continues, in part by defining some groups of women as good choice makers, some as bad. Solinger also advances a troubling economic thesis about adoption, defined roughly as the transfer of babies from women of one social classification to women in a higher social classification or group. Bracing and well-researched, Solinger's arguments should be considered by anyone working for women's and children's rights. --Regina Marler From Publishers Weekly Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. Choice evokes a marketplace model of consumer freedom, she explains, while rights are privileges to which one is justly and irrevocably entitled as a human being. The shift from the language of rights to that of choice was deliberate, aimed at reducing the federal welfare tab and increasing the pool of adoptable children, which began to diminish after the early 1970s, Solinger argues. Once the pill and legal abortion were available, poor women could be considered bad choice-makers if they kept having babies they couldn't afford hardly the government's responsibility. (Never mind, Solinger observes, that many poor women can't afford either option and might want children, just as middle-class women do.) Is this progress? No, Solinger writes: women with inadequate resources... must... have the right to determine for themselves whether or not to be mothers. With its crisp, jargon-free prose and copious footnotes, Solinger's reexamination of those twin bogeys the Back Alley Butcher and the Welfare Queen is a provocative read for any modern feminist. Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc. From Booklist Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Choice shifted abortion into the marketplace, as one of many consumer choices, leaving women who were too poor to qualify as consumers at the mercy of antiabortion politicians. Many activists, she observes, didn't think about the fact that pregnancy and childbearing have historically and dramatically separated women by race and class in this country. Solinger traces that separation, analyzing powerful stereotypes such as the back-alley butcher and the welfare queen and exploring the shifting qualifications imposed on women as gestators, mothers, and decision makers. In particular, she considers the interaction between advocates of choice and women who sought but did not always receive feminist support in their
