What a load of nonsense. A simplistic, misguided, rhetorical rant that is not worthy of 5 minutes of anybody's time.

...Jennifer Wilson …The sharpest arrow in the quiver of the religious right: Assailant of the OLO “wailing Wall” of the secular left. The Feminist rant, “Done and Dusted” again; and permanently tuned to the ABC.

Great stuff. It is really impossible to make any rational arguments against what Jennifer has written.
Check out Alternet for various essays which confirm what Jennifer writes about.
Plus this essay and website which connects all of the dots re the totalitarian agendas of right-wing christians in the USA.

http://tpjmagazine.us/adams29

It's worth remembering that the Obama administration started this fight when they tried to get religious institutions to sacrifice their religious freedom on the altar of secular atheism by forcing the church, mosque, and synagogue to provide abortifacients to staff.

It's also worth noting that since the birth control debate started that Obama has lost several percentage points in support amongst women, while Rick Santorum's support from women voters has increased -indicating that it's only a handful of feminists that are set on dismantling religious organisations (Bishops have stated that they will have to close every Catholic school, hospital, and university in America if this rule is not overturned) but that most women would rather be responsible for their own birth control.

progressive pat,

"The white House have now proposes (sic) a compromise that will allow religious organisations to opt out of providing coverage that would include birth control for women. But insurers will be required to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work for such institutions."

http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=19834

How would we feel if we were confronted by the same fundamentalist/literal view of Christianity seeking to embed itself in mainstream political and social discourse in this country?

...freaky indeed.

Aside from this poor piece of garbage writing, filled with it's simplistic notions of key ideas that Wilson assumes, her misunderstandings of the nature of religion vs state and secularism and how faith interplays in the public sphere, her horrendous usage of phrases like "reproductive rights" and the like, there is something more general at play here. Something ironically amusing and deeply sad about her and her feminist ilk. They simply have no idea that the ideas they promulgate will ultimately lead to the downfall of women. Thankfully feminism is a movement that has begun withering away and will one day be seen as one of the many quirks of history.

No Progressive Pat the Obama administration did not start this fight. The origins and totalitarian purposes of right-wing christians are much deeper and emotionally primitive than that - as the reference I provided describes.

Right wing Christians were already targeting Planned Parenthood and similar organizations which provided comprehensive birth control information long before the proposed legislation was introduced.
They had also started campaigns to even prevent the availability of contraceptives altogether.
Even, if I remember rightly, introduced legislation in some states to do this.

I know the point will be lost on the extremes where all feminism is hated and anything Jennifer has to say is intepreted on the basis of the feminist tag rather than what she actualy says but again, Jennifer is not one of those feminists running a war against men. Shes not one of those feminists supporting a one sided view of every gender issue.

Those anti-feminists who attack her and what she writes as though she were like that just polarise the debate and lessen the chances that more moderate readers will take the time to listen to what men have to say when we talk about the extremes hurting us.

You are no better than those feminists who dismiss the plight of men suffering harm via family law or CSA based on gender perceptions rather than concepts of fairness or what
s actually being said.

The takeover of the right side of politics by religious extremists is and should be a concern for those with liberal views. There don't seem to be moderate options for liberal voters anymore.

R0bert

@ Daffy Duck, why use the term "right wing Christians" when what you mean is simply, 'Christians'?

Christians don't seem to mind if Planned Parenthood and Media Matters exist, they just don't want to continue to fund them like secularists are trying to get them to do...both of these leftist organisations are, in fact, tax exempt.

Umm Trav, I don't identify myself as a "feminist" but I certainly don't think it's a dirty word, as you apparently do. I'm not aligned with any "feminist" movement. Therefore your strawman argument is pointless. Now perhaps you'd like to address the substance of the piece, including its links. Or do you dismiss all those commentators as "feminist" as well? Especially, perhaps, Carolyn in Texas, who is one of the first to bear the brunt of new legislation?

I am very disappointed with this article; when I saw the phrase "war on women" I expected to see a critique of Islam; but no, just the usual, craven attack on the right of US politics.

Why craven? Because, while no doubt there are some anti-abortion crazies floating around in the US right, they pale into insignificance compared with the misogony of Islam. And Islam does not muck around with disbelievers or apostates, male or female.

Until Western feminists stop writing drivel which is grotesquely disproportionate in its focus on the West and start attacking the real enemy of women, Islam, they deserve all the scorn they get.

From the article - "Even the US Constitution, so clear on the separation of church and state".

The authour, as a leading feminist who influences the opinions of millions of modern women should know that the US Constitution doesn't mention the separation of Church and State at all. The Constitution, however, does protect the freedom to 'exercise' religion, anytime, anywhere -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Paying for birth control/ abortion is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Paying for a new highway or hospital is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

The separation of church and state argument grew out of the fear US states had of the federal government dismantling their own religion, and replacing it with a national denomination. In this contect, these days the 'denomination' infringing on freedom of religion the most, is the religion of secularism (see: Torcaso v. Watkins).

Jennifer, asking anyone to address the "substance of the piece" implies that there is actually substance to be addressed

I'm going to try a different tack here. I'm troubled by the passionate nature of the article and its sources and wonder, if the argument is so compelling, why we need facile phrases like "gaining control over women's bodies", when it's as much about the child as the mother, or hyperbole such as this: "God's Own Party is determined to make America one country under God, and if you're a woman, and even more if you're a poor woman, you will be crushed [sic] in the righteous pursuit of the imposition of God's will".
And then I question the author's priorities, or at least Wendy Kaminer's, when she condemns the hypocrisy of refusing "treatment" based on gender when, she says, discrimination based on race would be abhorred. Presumably, pregnant women are not discriminated against, regardless of race? But more to the point, the US already discriminates on the basis of wherewithal! People are left to die if they can't pay for health-care and surely that's more offensive than expectant mothers being second guessed?
But beyond all that, I question the very notion of "freedom" that is putatively at stake. What is the quality of this freedom that women should be guaranteed? We can abhor the right-to-life zealots but all societies require moral codes to live by and untrammelled “freedom” is mere alienation, and not freedom at all. Wherein are we free? We’re bound hand and foot in our prescribed lives, and according to convention, good and bad. Are we to retreat narcissistically into our neurotic selves and our cherished bodies for the illusion, a consolation, of freedom?
In any case, is not our freedom, such as it is, paradoxically incumbent upon us as a debt to society? If not, it’s mere sociopathy—dressed in the elegant raiment of librertarianism. The fool’s freedom, more a species isolation and social-neglect! We’re only free within, and answerable to, society—outside, it’s “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”—“free” in a word.
This issue has far more depth and contingency to it than this eccentric and emotive article would have us believe.

"What is the quality of this freedom that women should be guaranteed?"

The same right that everyone should have: the right to individual religious belief; religious belief in this context means the right to find meaning in your life and death.

When this individual right causes the individual to lose connection with other individuals and society we call it a pathology.

Yet when a group of individuals who have unified under a collective religious belief seek to convert the rest of society to their belief we do not quibble with that at the psychological level even if that collective religious belief is patently insane in part or whole.

It is definitely time for a new analysis of what religion is and offers beyond the stale polarity of atheism and fundamentalism. That new discussion must still take place in a secular context because that is the only type of society which can accommodate such a discussion.

This article's motley cliches and typical cri de coeur offers nothing in that direction.

Really, Squeers, the right to safe and legal abortion is hardly “untrammelled freedom.” Talk about hyperbole. “People are left to die?” What people? Who is left to die? Where are you getting this information?

Your claim that it’s “as much about the child as the mother” tells me where you sit in the debate. You’ll have to try harder for a “different tack” – nothing at all “different” about what you’ve said so far.

Thank you, Progressive Pat, for elevating my importance to that of “a leading feminist who influences millions of modern women.” This article though, and indeed the situation, is not about feminists and feminism. One does not have to be a card-carrying feminist to abhor the events in the US at the moment. The article is also about abortion, not birth control. They are separate issues and ought not to be conflated because that does neither of them justice.

I’m surprised at the fear of emotion revealed in some comments. It is appropriate to express emotion, though I don’t agree that I, or the commenters I link to are unduly emotional about this very emotional topic. Ms Jones, for example, tells her story with dignity and does not deny her anguish. Why should anyone else?
Jennifer.

I also don't buy the argument of institutional misogyny Jennifer and the women she cites profess. The Christian right in the US and elsewhere has just as many women members as men, in some cases more! Are they misogynists too? And while the subjection of women within narrow fundamentalist constraints should be debated vigorously, so should the stereotyping of men and the masculine roles and constraints they're overtly and subliminally manipulated by.
Women aren't actually being forced to keep their babies, and all the reproductive freedom does still lie ultimately with them. The fact is it's a democracy and a percentage of the population have strong views about the sanctity etc. of the life of the child. The women who believe it's the woman's body, and she shouldn't be gainsaid in her rights over the foetus, have a strong argument, imo; but like it or not, the other side believes it has a case too, and it's a democracy--no doubt you'd rather let the markets decide, Jennifer?
I recently criticised democracy for tolerating denialists on the vital issue of climate change--an issue of national security, yet minimifidianists have just as much political influence as the right-to-lifers, more! I feel as precious about the planet as Christians do about unborn babies, but I was shouted down for daring to question the wisdom of the democratic process.

Jennifer, women "have" the right to "safe and legal abortion", just not to be indifferent about it, or see it as "treatment".
You are aware that healthcare has to be paid for privately in the US (though things have improved under Obama)? Ironically, it's the pro-lifers who'd rather “People were left to die": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037066/Ron-Paul-GOP-debate-Tea-Party-fanatics-say-let-uninsured-people-die.html
But you haven't read my post carefully, or you haven't understood it, or you don't want to know. Not surprising; I've tried to debate you in depth before, but you prefer the shallows.
I support pro-choice btw.

"I recently criticised democracy for tolerating denialists on the vital issue of climate change--an issue of national security,"

What garbage. Who are you, Clive Hamilton.

I suppose by national security you mean the threat posed by hordes of Pacific Islanders invading Australia from their rapidly sinking islands?

Dear god, when will this lunacy end! This planet survived an asteroid strike 65 millions bya which had the energy equivalent of about 10 million times the combined nuclear stockpile and you subscribe to the theory that a trace gas will destroy the planet?

Quick quiz; what anthropogenic source of CO2 emissions is the largest one?

Whenever I come across one of these 'I am women hear me roar' posts I immediately assume the person is trying to hide the truth and manipulate me.

Just because you're melodramatic or emotional about something doesn't make you right. The dramatics are designed to frighten off criticism. It works in real life because people like to avoid conflict but the internet allows people to speak their mind. There's an honesty about it. So the 'I am women' routine really just comes across as a mad rant.

Squeers,

Your link is somewhat disturbing. It seems that the religious right in the U.S. is quite capable of fanaticism - and perhaps Jennifer is alluding to this fact when she criticizes the GOP leadership for courting this section of society. This sort of mindset seems to spread like wildfire - almost as an hysteria. Obviously not all religious adherents in the U.S. would support leaving poor people to die, yet this libertarian/fundamentalist viewpoint appears to encourage such notions. The flip side is the concern for the sanctity of life in the womb, where "human life" is apparently lauded in the highest.

I do get Jennifer's sense that this parade of GOP religious integrity may be the thin end of the wedge for a violent swerve to the right in U.S. social arrangements. As it stands now, many lower- middle and middle-class citizens are bankrupted by their health-care bills. The system stinks in that country. At least the very poor can rely on some sort of support. If this is rescinded there will be people dying on the streets.

Regarding the contrasting concern of the fanatics between the sanctity of life for a poor person and a foetus, one is led to suspect that if "all" life is not held in the same regard, then perhaps the intimidation of those seeking abortion "is" the first step in a move to control and restrict their access to safe procedures....anything that proceeds from that point would radically alter the status quo for women and society in general in that country.

Poirot,

it is disturbing seeing the rise of right-wing fanaticism, but it goes hand in hand with the economic fundamentalism that drives it. And while the inconsistency of the right-to-lifers--save babies but let the rest die--is stark to us, as I'm tired if saying, people can rationalise anything. Indeed many of the working classes being screwed by the system will join the ranks of the conservatives, since intolerance knows no borders, and as history attests when times are tough there tends to be just the sort of groundswell towards paranoia and fascism that we're seeing around the world. Yet while democracy is a failure on global warming, and would be if women's rights over their own bodies were compromised, it's still better than libertarianism wherein all ethical concerns are redundant and the market is given free reign. The free market would no more agonise over abortion than it would global warming--indeed Swift's "Modest Proposal" might be realised and we'd all in time come to see unwanted foetus's as a valuable and hitherto wasted resource; for stem-cell research, fertiliser, pet food--in time maybe even gourmet restaurants..
Now that's "freedom", no ethical constraints on anything, just free choice. It might sound dark but that's where we're heading.
Democracy is our only hope, but it has to be an educated, ethical, engaged and self-reflexive democracy (paedia, in a word), wherein the vicious GOP's would gradually be converted and see the light, or otherwise shrink and die. Sadly, our democracy shows no sign of becoming more enlightened in this way; devolving into Morlocks seems much more likely.

Squeers,

I'm inclined to believe that fanatical libertarianism is chiefly economic in mindset. It translates, however, into a narrowing of social liberties. It's code for stepping over the downtrodden and the white-anting of social democracy. Look at the trouble Obama had to win even a few modest changes to the health-care act. He was forced to include tax deals for the wealthy by a GOP dominated Senate.
Ironically,it's elitism of the kind that Jesus preached against, but because it's linked to some sort of religious righteousness, tunnelled-vision adherents are apt to condone it as socially acceptable.

I'm a bit of a fence-sitter in this respect. On the one hand, I'm concerned at the social aspects of a society that dumps its children into institutions in such numbers so it's "working-age" members can stampede in their hordes to the "workplace". On the other, economic libertarianism is likely to have the opposite effect on the social "freedoms" that have been enjoyed by society since WWII. In my mind, it's almost a given that women will experience a restricted version of their present state if right-wing religious fervour is embraced by majority vote in the U.S.

Yeah well encouraging boys and girls to show some restraint and prevent disease, psychological damage and degradation does seem a bit abhorent to feminist and many secularist. They do not at any cost want their own ruined lives exposed by commonsense. They would rather the promotion of fatherless families, countless sexual partners and an abundant supply of porn enslaving the young and old. They call this freedom and those living with some restraint bondage. Thankfully many now are voting with their feet and money by sending their kids to schools that at least re inforce some resemblance of morality. No wonder the godless now want to control the private system with their own failed dogmas. Look at the lives of many of our Pollies and you get the drift.

Yes Squeers, those woman are misogynist too. It didn't occur to me when I wrote the article to point out that women are deeply involved in the religious right's subjection of women as well as men, because I take that as a given. Clearly, others don't, and I must remember in future to state it.

Whether or not the women I cite agree that there are misogynist women I don't know, but my guess would be that they do, especially Hillary Clinton. I in no way hold "men" solely responsible for the current bizarre focus of the GOP on women's bodies and their reproductive functions.

Women have always paid for their abortions in the US system, with a few exceptions. The use of federal money to subsidise abortion outside of those exceptions has always been illegal. Women are buying this service. As Roe v Wade is not likely to be overturned any time soon, women will continue to buy this service. What other medical service requires that a woman be legally forced to undergo intimately invasive physical and emotional procedures against her will, before she is allowed to purchase the service?

The obnoxious legal changes are occurring at state level, after last April the Republicans almost brought the US to a grinding halt with their demands at the federal level for withdrawal of funding from Planned Parenthood clinics, only backing down at the last minute. I link to this story in the article.

Obviously the question of abortion (and contraception) is a central concern for many US voters, otherwise I doubt we'd see Republican Presidential candidates running so much of their campaigns around it. I doubt they'd give much of a damn if there weren't votes in it, even if it was against their personal ethics. Romney, for example, used to be overtly pro choice, but when he realised that wasn't going to work for him became "pro life."

I also agree with the dismantling of hegemonic masculinity and the gender roles it imposes, and have argued for this many times.

Poirot,
I do agree. I think the tea party members are only economic libertarians and couldn't care less about the abortion issue, any more than they do about illegal immigrants. It's rather a satisfying irony actually that the conservative heartland of the US and elsewhere is being patronised by the Godless money-merchants for their votes.

Briar Rose,
I respect your position fundamentally (pardon the pun), we just differ in the particulars. I agree that women are misogynists too, under the umbrella of patriarchy, but that's wearing a little thin (patriarchy ain't what it used to be) and, moreover, the implication is that women don't have the balls(?) to stop being brain-washed by maledom. Women are well-represented at church, ANZAC parades, football matches, indeed all macho/ceremonial occasions. It seems to me, by this reckoning, the vast majority of women are misogynists--or maybe women are just naturally passive/religious/conservatives?
In any event, my only real grumble with your position is you keep on trying to defend "free choice" as a virtue in itself, when your own premises--oppressive auto/misogyny--indicate that possibly most women are incapable of making a "free" choice. Now it could be argued that exercising free choice is the first step towards empowerment and emancipation, but that's surely a cold victory for those women tough enough to endure their pariah status in a place like the US, or its conservative religious enclaves. For emotionally fragile women it must be a nightmare.
So while I'm pro-choice, I argue that promoted as a virtue in itself it's indistinguishable from libertarianism, which is either (for me) socially despicable or ethically shallow. Either way, women feel the pain; their feelings are either commodified or rationalised.

tbc

...
I'm a mere male but I'm trying to empathise in saying that for many women an abortion must be an extremely emotional, even devastating, act of violence against themselves. There are in imo many excellent reasons and justifications for taking such a step (not least saving the planet!), but the least of them is "free choice", and I for one am never going to be completely comfortable with the necessity. Nor should any of us take it lightly. let's not denigrate women's maternal-intelligence--which women surely "feel"; it isn't programmed by men--by treating such a momentous decision as perfunctory. If we're going to defend women's right to an abortion, let's explore the morality of it, which surely redound to her credit, and respect and do justice to her feelings--and at the same time confound and give the lie to the manic and hypocritical ethics of fundies.
Citing "free choice" is a cop-out and gives the moral high-ground to the fanatics.

Squeers,

I think Tea Party members are concerned about moral issues such as abortion. I also think that that kind of puritanical viewpoint is naturally at home with a libertarian economic philosophy - they are perfect bedfellows.

It's a kind of Protestant mindset where the "good" are rewarded and the immorally impure are shunned and/or controlled by those operating from an exalted sense of righteousness - a God-given approval to ignore the suffering of the lower orders, etc....

We only have to look at the way the new middle-class inhabited the best pews in the church during the Industrial Revolution while presiding over inhuman work practices to glean the connection between libertarian economic practice and a sense of "higher morality" - their consciences were clear.

I see the same attitudes forming a tell-tale slick on the surface of American politics and society. Recent examples of GOP leaders pandering to this mindset are disturbing, yet probably predictable. As you pointed out, this type of "return to the past morality" tends to surface when countries begin to sense that their glory days are numbered.

@Squeers I don’t make the claim that some women are misogynist entirely as a result of introjecting patriarchal attitudes. That’s reductionist. There are complex factors in play of which patriarchal indoctrination is but one.

Neither do I agree that women can be defined as misogynist by virtue of participating in “macho ceremonies.” As for lacking “balls” – many people lack the will/capacity to resist “brainwashing” by the orthodoxy, this isn’t peculiar to women. Hegemonic masculinity also “brainwashes” men, and many men lack the balls to interrogate their own indoctrination. I’m not sure that framing this lack of will/capacity as gender based is useful.

I don’t think I use the term “free choice” at all in my article, so I’m not sure where your argument with me on this is coming from.
I am pro choice in the matter of abortion. I don’t know anyone who is pro abortion.

However, since you brought it up, I think “free choice” like “free speech” is something of a misnomer – neither can be entirely “free” and neither is a “virtue”, rather both are a responsibility. Being “free to choose” to have an abortion doesn’t strike me as an offensive concept, and certainly that choice incurs serious responsibilities. I haven’t yet heard of a woman who perceives abortion as a practical demonstration of her exercise of free choice. As you rightly note, the experience is not a pleasant one. Most of us would undertake it only as a necessity. When faced with that option the only bearing free choice has on the matter is our freedom to access safe and legal procedures, having made the choice to terminate a pregnancy. The choice may not feel exactly “free” depending on a woman’s circumstances. I do have some sympathy with the feminist argument that calls for a society in which women (and men) are far more supported in child rearing, so that termination doesn’t feel as necessary. I don’t think our culture is particularly child friendly, or friendly enough to parents.

Poirot,
Sorry, I haven’t been able to reply till now. I tend to imagine the classic individualist libertarian as amoral and socially anarchic, a la the Peter Hume representation. But this impression is probably more an archetypes than the stereotypes you invoke. I think you make an excellent point!

Briar Rose,
Thanks for stating your position a little more fully and acknowledging some of the complexity beneath populist pro-choice jargon. What you say, particularly in your last paragraph seems very reasonable to me.
Just a couple of things; when you say that lacking “the will/capacity to resist “brainwashing” by the orthodoxy … isn’t peculiar to women. Hegemonic masculinity also “brainwashes” men, and many men lack the balls to interrogate their own indoctrination”, that’s exactly the point I was making in one of my posts above, ergo I don’t frame “this lack of will/capacity as gender based”. And while I agree some women are misogynists, I don’t believe the issue is based on misogyny in the main on either side, which “is” reductionism.
I didn’t mean to imply I was quoting you when I put inverted commas around “free choice”, but was criticising your condemnation of pro-life on the basis of pro-choice, and the want of any in-depth discussion of the ethics and agonies of pro-choice, or, conversely, critique of the complexities/vacuity of the pro-life lobby—though admittedly you were only dealing with the GOP set. Nevertheless it seems to me the article was heavy-handed with rhetoric and light on argument. The fanatical pro-lifers are their own worst enemies and should, imo, be taken to task on their own crackpot premises, as well as their hypocrisies. By the same token not all social or religious pro-life discourses can or should be lumped together and dismissed en masse. I think the best way to defend a cause against criticism is to take the opposing viewpoints to task on their own terms, while compellingly espousing your own reasoning. Oftentimes you’re never going to defeat prejudice or dogmatism—except little by little in undermining it—but close reasoning will at least impress thinking people.