since the dawn of (wo)man...

I hate generalizing and would normally never make a blanket statement about all women, but it seems to me that women have a way of being petty, malicious and competitive in a way that men are not. No, I'm not talking about America's Next Top Model, I'm talking about women's (and for that matter couples') decision if and when to have children.

More often than not throughout history, women who have chosen paths other than motherhood have been treated like they were avoiding their god-given duty, as if being a mother (or desiring to be a mother) was the natural state of being and those who disagreed were the variation on their natural state. (You know, just like how being hetero is natural and being not hetero is some sort of "alternative lifestyle".)

As more and more women choose to delay or completely put off motherhood, I'm finding that there seems to be a (teeny tiny) backlash towards the women who still do choose to have children. Not by the mainstream, but by the feminist community. "Oh, you're getting married, buying a house and then having a couple kids? You can't possibly be a feminist." In the interest of full disclosure, I do not have children, and while I wouldn't rule it out as a future life-decision, I am not climbing up the walls waiting to get a baby in my arms. Children are pretty gross, and right now I'm totally okay with my life-decision to have beer and a box of mac n' cheese for dinner at least once a week.

That statement brings me to another point. Depending on your audience, you might have to defend yourself According to the mainstream; (I hate that word) women who choose not to have kids must be selfish and totally unable to grow up and give up their lifestyle for the miraculous gift of parenthood. According to some liberals; women who start families are brainwashed into thinking that that's how they need to live their lives and we need more people going against the grain if we're ever going to change the social structure of this society. Either way, someone will criticize you.

But two wrongs don't make a right, and retaliation is the opposite of progress.

I think that most thoughtful feminists would tell me that they respect whatever choice a woman makes, at whatever point in her life, but I think they would be lying if they didn't at least know what I'm talking about. I can be guilty of this too, like I said, children are pretty gross so it's better for my life if I choose my friends based on the amount of grossness in their lives, but I know it doesn't make it better. Why does it always have to be a comparison? Why can't it just be what it is? How did everything turn full circle from fighting for the right to prevent pregnancy to now fighting to be mothers without judgment? It would be nice if we stopped attacking each other and just became more supportive of each other's life-decisions, because that's what we're asking from everyone else.

Am I alone in this or do people know what I'm talking about?

what michelle duggar teaches us about choice

If you want to fight for choice, I’m sorry feminists, but here it is. You have to fight for a woman’s right to have a child, even if she is having it under all the conditions that seem to be ripe for a pro-abortion argument. If choice is genuine, it means choosing when and if a woman becomes a mother, even if that decision is to carry to term, over and over again. And additionally, it doesn’t just mean carrying the pregnancy to term, but the decision as to how and whether to get pregnant in the first place. That’s right, we have to stand up for Michelle Duggar.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that there’s this televised family in the south with 19 children, the last of which was born three months prematurely at 1lb 6oz due to Michelle’s undiagnosed pre-eclampsia. After spending 4 months in the hospital, baby Josie came home, followed by another brief hospital stay.

And if you’re familiar with the show, you know that the Duggars are fundamental Christians, and although they don’t promote one specific denomination of Christianity, it’s generally believed that they subscribe to the “Quiverfull” movement which discourages the use of any form of birth control, including natural family planning, and encourages its members to have as many children as “God allows”. The family lives in a very gender-structured household where all the children are home-schooled. They subscribe to the theory that couples should not kiss or hug before marriage, and value modesty in a very traditional sense. Needless to say, their upbringing is “different”.

When their 19^th child was born, you should have seen the interwebs. It was full of “This should be their sign not to have any more children!” “It’s reckless to have so many children!” “Michelle Duggar should have her tubes tied!” And even from some of my feminist friends… “Why wouldn’t she just use birth control! Doesn’t she know she has a CHOICE?”

This is neither the time nor the place to discuss why the Duggar’s choose not to use birth control, but the fact is that they have that choice. They do not consider themselves able to “choose” how many children they have, rather that God chooses how many children they have. Regardless, the argument can still be made that they “choose” whether or not to follow the teachings they believe to be true.

I think we might need to take a quick second to deconstruct the Quiverfull movement. The Quiverfull movement was started by women. It was a reaction to the feminist movement that popularized birth control, yes, but that doesn’t necessarily make it anti-feminist. I think people have a tendency to assume that this movement was started by some sort of patriarchal board that decided their women couldn’t use birth control, and that wasn’t the case at all. Women decided that the feminist movement didn’t speak for them and their religious beliefs, and so they congregated in groups and started this movement by themselves. That’s totally feminist! Now I know that Mary Pride, who some consider original author of the Quiverfull doctrine (although she has now distanced herself from being called the founder of this movement) considered herself to be an anti-feminist, but I’m confident that when she is mistaking being a mother for being the opposite of being a feminist. If you want to read more about the Quiverfull movement their website can be found here and some more balanced information (wikipedia) can be found here.

Is Michelle Duggar’s (and Jim Bob Duggar’s for that matter) choice to have 19 children any less defendable than someone’s choice to have an abortion? Of course it’s not. And for the sake of argument, her children are very well provided for, not just in the sense of basic necessities but in the sense of quality relationships with others. Obviously the camera only gives us a glimpse into their lives, but for all intents and purposes those kids have it better off than a large number of American children. But their quality of life isn’t really the argument here. The argument is the fact that Michelle Dugger is the quintessential example of choice. Just because her choice wasn’t abortion, doesn’t make it any less of a choice. Michelle knows she has a choice. She makes a choice every day. She’s made the choice to have 19 children, all of whom are well cared for, healthy and loved. She chose motherhood. How much more feminist could that be?

And this is the argument we need to get back to. Choice is about motherhood, not abortion.

pro-choice or pro-abortion

Let it be known, I am not here to preach about choice. This blog is not about choice, because as I’m sure I’ll argue in a later post, you do not have to be pro-choice to be a feminist. 

Let’s break it down. Historically, the pro-life* side has argued (in a nutshell) that abortion is murder, and therefore should be illegal under our current laws that prohibit me from legally picking up a gun and killing any other being on this earth. Conversely, the pro-choice side has argued that abortion is a necessary function of society and a right of women to make the choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, typically argued as being in the best interest of the mother or baby, or both. However, I think that in my lifetime the topic of choice has well, gotten dangerously off topic.

Instead of forcing the pro-life side to defend their position differently, the pro-choice side has in what appears to be a reaction to the argument of the opposition turned their argument dangerously away from choice and into the territory of making abortion accessible. And even more dangerous is the rhetoric that has moved away from motherhood, as if motherhood was no longer a choice, but abortion the only choice we’re able to talk about.

Don’t get me wrong, choice and the fight for accessible, safe abortions often go hand in hand. However, they are theoretically and in reality two different fights.

Putting the argument to safe and accessible abortions aside, we have to get back to the nature of the “choice” argument which unfortunately seems to be lost on so many feminists I meet. Like I said, you do not have to be pro-choice in order to be a feminist, but you do have to be pro-choice to be pro-choice. And I hear you, “But without accessible abortion, women barely have choice!” But until abortion is no longer a hotly debated topic sparking visceral reactions in most of the public, we have to solidify the basic argument before moving onto the next.

*normally I would not advocate the use of the term "pro-choice" but I think it's important to let each side self-identify for the sake of this argument