Valenti writes “Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women”  Well, abortion and contraception are two of the biggest ‘oppressors’ of women in our day.  Why can’t these Femi nazis see this???  I don’t always agree with Palin, but she is a woman fighting for what is Best for women.

“men, who, until recently, couldn’t get pregnant”  What on earth?  Those “transgendered men” are not men—they are very confused women!  The lies they love to spread.  Blech.  Should have warned us to read this at least 2 hours after eating.  :)  When are they going to have the Violence against Men Act?  My b-i-laws were abused by their wives—no lie. 

I do think that Feminists for Life addresses issues that many pro-life groups do not.  We need to realize as a pro-life people that we are a community, and we need to advocate for families, womb to tomb.  Fathers or mothers getting fired because of their children’s needs should be a violation of civil rights.  Parents should be added to the list of who cannot be discriminated against.

Who is Jessica Valenti and who made her the imprimatur of Sarah Palin’s feminist credentials?  I define a feminist as a person, male or female, who believes a woman can be anything she aspires to be.  Sarah Palin is the personification of feminism: wife, mother, college graduate,best-selling author, public speaker, political commentator,elected official, and pro-life advocate.  She doesn’t require validation from some pro-abortion mouthpiece.

Abortion is not a choice; it is a lack of viable options.  It is the failure of society to protect the most vulnerable among us.  God bless Sarah Palin and God help the rest of us.

maybe, maybe not.

http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin

During the campaign, she said she was very pro-contraceptive

What I find incredibly ridiculous is that pro-choice feminists reject that which by nature differentiates them sexually from men, their own feminine fertility. 

However, I am not totally surprised given the bent culture we live in.

One thing that keeps feminism perpetually at war with society is the refusal of movement feminists to define the term.  That definitional fluidity allows them to employ widely variable definitions by implication, depending on context and intention. That’s useful but dishonest, which is just what one would expect.

If I were Sarah Palin—or any other intelligent and well-disposed Christian woman—I would reject a feminist label from any source.

Years ago I volunteered at a womens’ shelter.  I was the only married woman who volunteered there.  All the others were lesbian or single and very man angry.  It was hard, but I wanted to be there for the women who were raped, because I am also a rape survivor.  One day, all the “ladies” in charge sat me down.  Really wanted to talk to me.  Told me that they loved my work, really good with the women, but I really didn’t fit in. They told we that they were all feminist and me being a traditional wife and mom, with two children was uncomfortable for them.  I told them I was a feminist too, (I definitely have a different definition of that word!)and I was sorry my lifestyle made them uncomfortable.  They told me that being feminist was so “I could be the woman I wanted to be without any limitations!”  I told them that this was the type of woman I wanted to me, and I was not limited in any way.  I didn’t even have to work, could volunteer full time.  They were silent.

The reference link for Kathleen Parkers takes you to a link for modest swimwear…

Thanks for the heads up. The link works now. - DB

I find it interesting that these so called “liberal feminists” have forgotten what it means to be truly “feminine”...
“If a woman’s vocation is the protection of life and the preservation of the family, she cannot remain indifferent as to whether or not governments and nations assume forms which are favorable to the growth of the family and the well-being of the young.”—Edith Stein aka Sr. Mary Theresa Benedicta of the Cross, died in Auschwitz 9 Aug 1942

If Sarah’s a feminist, then I would be too.

Oh, how I would like to “chill” with her…fem to fem.

Feminists for Life has clearly shown that early feminists Susan B. Anthony and her sisters were decidely against abortion. It was the so-called feminists of the 60s who ignored that and corrupted the term.

True feminists are pro life, period.

“God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him, male and female he created them.  God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile andmultiply; fill the earth and subdue it”  Genesis 1:27-28.

“The Lord God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone.  I will make a suitable partner for him.”  Genesis 2:15

AUTHENTIC FEMININITY….written in the hearts and souls of all FEMALES created by God, in HIS Divine image.

Motherhood (and fatherhood) created by God with His design to BRING SOULS INTO THE WORLD.

I’ll take God’s plan of feminism every time.

Another “elephant in the room” being ignored: Sarah Palin is obviously capable of doing what most “feminists” only dream of - becoming a state governor - and she did it without aborting any of her children.  In other words - she really can do more and do it better than the mediocre feminist.
I think it’s also time to tell it like it is: abortion = the sacrifice of our children on the altar of self-centeredness (feminism).

Mrs Palin has claimed many times that (1) she had medical testing that she knew would endanger her unborn baby’s life. Further, she has claimed many times that (2) subsequent to the rest results determining her baby would be disabled - she considered abortion.

Prenant in my 40s I never once considered the dangerous testing that could kill my unborn baby. And if the testing had been harmless I would never - EVER - have considered abortion - not for a millisecond.

So who is really “pro-life” here?

Some people need to get a grip and stop trying to redefine ‘pro-life’ as tossing up a decision as to whether or not your baby should live.

Recalling Danielle’s blog about how glad she was her husband only worked with men.  Glad to see you think a woman can be anything she wants to be.  So stop fretting over men and women working together and stop labeling some jobs as male and others as female.  They will be done differently because of the sex of the person doing them, but they will still be done!

Of course one can be a feminist and be pro-life (and pro-contraception). The definition of “life” is being bandied about even more than the definition of feminism. For anyone who recognizes that life is present before birth, there is no question that feminist rights have a boundary right there at the beginning of the new life. There is plenty of work to be done in expanding the other limits that bind. Future generations will have a better perspective on this than we do.

Conformational bias is strong amongst these comments. Believing something is so just because you want to does not make you right anymore than it makes me right.
At the end of the day Palin continues to define what it is to be a woman first and a human next on selfish “do as I say not as I do” principal. She uses the same macho tricks that men used for most of the 20th century to shut the other side up.(Intimadation, shouting louder, and the best is when found to be incongruent,just acting like others are out to make her look bad (surprise- you do not need help) Palin is no feminist. She is a huge supporter of personal rights to choose what SHE wants for HERSELF in her family and tell you what you should do based on what SHE wants for herself. Then hiding behind the skirt of family values and playing the GOD and country card. What a hypocrite.

<If anyone—even someone who actively fights against women’s rights—can call herself a feminist, the word and the movement lose all meaning.>

Women’s rights in this context means abortion.  Abortion is not a right.  Rights either exist for all people or they aren’t rights—merely twisted, misguided adn destructive privileges.

Whatever her shortcomings, I hope Sarah has blazed a trail for more conservative women’s voices to be heard.

Feminism, as defined by the “progressive” left, is most definitely a radical distancing from all things feminine. This is seen especially in the modern feminist’s unnatural willingness to participate in matters of death as opposed to the natural feminine instinct to defend and protect life. As Chesterton said 100 years ago, modern feminism is really a surrender of women to men: “...there has happened a strange and startling thing. Openly and to all appearance, this ancestral conflict has silently and abruptly ended; one of the two sexes has surrendered to the other… the woman has in public surrendered to the man. She has seriously and officially owned that the man has been right all along; that the public house [politics] is really more important than the private house… We knew quite well that nothing is necessary to the country except that men should be men and women women. We knew this; we thought women knew it even more clearly; and we thought the women would say it. Suddenly, without warning, women have begun to say all the nonsense that we ourselves hardly believed when we said it.” 
Chesterton elevates the role of women far above the role of men, recognizing the natural masculine/feminine balance needed for healthy human existence. He defends women and the essence of what is feminine better than any modern feminist ever could: “I said to a Feminist once: ‘The question is not whether women are good enough for votes, but whether votes are good enough for women.’ He only answered: ‘Ah, you go and say that to the women chain-makers in Cradley Heath.’ Now it is this attitude which I attack. It is the huge heresy of Precedent. It is the view that because we have got into a mess we must grow messier to suit it… There are numbers of excellent people who do not think votes unfeminine; and there may be enthusiasts for our beautiful modern industry who do not think factories unfeminine. But if these things are unfeminine it is no answer to say that they fit into each other. I am not satisfied with the statement that my daughter must have unwomanly powers because she has unwomanly wrongs. Industrial soot and political printers ink are two blacks which do not make a white. Most of the Feminists would probably agree with me that womanhood is under shameful tyranny in shops and mills. But I want to destroy the tyranny. They want to destroy womanhood. That is the only difference. Whether we can recover the clear vision of woman as a tower of many windows, the fixed eternal feminine from which her sons, the specialists, go forth; whether we can preserve the tradition of a central thing which is even more human than democracy and even more practical than politics; whether, in word, it is possible to re-establish the family, freed from the filthy cynicism and cruelty of the commercial epoch, I shall discuss in the last section of this book. But meanwhile do not talk to me about the poor chain-makers on Cradley Heath. I know all about them and what they are doing. They are engaged in a very wide-spread and flourishing industry of the present age. They are making chains.”

I think you misunderstand Vallenti’s point, she didn’t seem to be interested in excluding “prolife” feminists from the argument, it just seems that there needs to be a dialogue between the two groups “prolife” and prochoice.  There is a logical fallacy within the argument that one can be pro-women and also “anti-choice” I actually agree that a womans place is to have children it is a beautiful thing to have such a beautiful and strong connection with some one a love so big it grows into a new being.  However that being said I want to care for my kids and also be personally fulfilled, and my model does not follow convention am I less of a woman?  The problem with the message of anti-choice feminism is that it follows the reasoning of biological determinism as women we are meant to be in the home, with kids.  However what about the woman who cannot have children?  What is her biological destiny?
Also a biologically sexed man cannot have children gendered woman who is also a sexed male can, I believe that is what you are citing in your article.

Pro-life means that you believe in the sanctity of human life from beginning to end and that you understand life begins at conception.  Note I say “understand” and not “believe”, as it is a fact and not an opinion.  You can choose to debate viability and reproductive rights and mother Vs. child priority all day long, but that does not alter the fact that it is a life you choose to end.  I do not misunderstand Valenti’s point.  She has concluded that pro-life and feminist are mutually exclusive.  I am very pro-life and very pro-woman.  I don’t destroy the former to build up the latter.  Valenti does not speak for me and therefore does not own the feminist label.  Sarah Palin can define herself any way she chooses.  It is her birthright.

A feminist is a woman who stands up for women’s rights.  That’s all.  A woman’s rights are being defined differently by different groups.  Sarah Palin is a feminist because she is standing up for women in the workplace while also modeling a pro-life choice in embracing her son Trig’s life.  Unfortunately even women who think of themselves as pro-women’s rights really aren’t- perhaps even including Danielle Bean. Trying to protect your marriage by excluding opposite sexes from working together is desperate.  If your man or woman doesn’t have enough character to be faithful, you need to bear your cross, not condemn the whole world to single sex workplaces!  I work with men and face discrimination and bias daily.  In their efforts for control and power men and women are trying to use any argument to hold onto the power they have and exclude women from earning a good living - even if it means unchristian practices like discrimination and labelling, slander and marginalizing.  From experience I can see it is clear what’s best for the moral growth of the workplace or the company’s success are nowhere on the list of priorities.  What matters is a destructive form of competition to get one’s own way.  Mark’s comments about GK Chesterton probably refer to women always leading to a higher moral ground when it came to matters of the flesh.  Abortion brings women down to the low level of men who don’t care about anything but protecting their sexual freedom at all costs.  But there is nothing degrading about honest work.  And I couldn’t disagree more with Chesterton on that.  Women can bring that same moral growth to the workplace and overcome the self-destructive boys club mentality.  God is not as narrow minded as some of you appear to be.  God bless.

We formed the California Catholic Women’s Forum in 2005 in order to help present the Catholic teaching on who a woman is and what she is meant to be. Our moniker is “True Feminism for Real Women”. Feminism is a noun that refers to anything having to do with the feminine. Since the advent of the industrial revolution feminism has been a part of the common parlance and has meant different things at different points in time. Ms. Valenti confounds feminism with radical feminism. Early 20th C first wave feminism centered on women’s equality in the vote and property rights. ? Second wave radical feminism of the 60’s still prevalent today concerns workplace issues, sexual objectification and abortion. It attempts to separate a woman’s identity from her body in order to create a gender-neutral society and “equal playing field”. This self-centered view has reaped a generation of women who wonder what they did it all for and children who know they are just a “choice”. ? Third wave feminism seeks to define woman authentically, welcoming her function as life-giver and primary nurturer as of primary importance to the well-being of society while recognizing that taking life is not “women’s rights”. It seeks to establish a homeostasis between family and work that uplifts the spirit, honors the complementarity of men and women and enables women to utilize all their talents to better society. The day my response letter to Ms. Valenti’s article was published in our local paper we received a letter from a local doctor who said she and many like her had moved away from identifying herself with the “feminist movement” because it no longer represented what she believed as a Christian wife, mother, and physician. The next day another response was published from a local “feminist” who stated that feminism does not want to separate a woman’s identity from her body but does want a woman to be able to control her body. Women we are made of mind (will), body and spirit. Allowing one part of our makeup to override the other parts sets a dangerous precedent. The will unfettered can be a dangerous tool, witness the willful child who will not listen to his/her parents! The will unfettered ends up enslaving us as it subsumes itself to the wiles of society at large. The person becomes a tool of someone else with their own agenda, whereas the only agenda we should be striving to adhere to is God’s. To see more of what we believe, you can read our thoughts on the truefeminism.org blog.

Ms.Coldiron,  You sound as though you are limiting God and judging by appearances.  What your body can do and was made for is not what every other woman’s body can do and was made for.  Your ilk have become female nazis from my experience.  You have decided what God meant for every human female.  How extraordinary.  As Jesus said, “Enough for each day is its worries.  If you worked on your own life and the holiness of it you wouldn’t be forming groups to decide how other women should live theirs. You are a sneaky form of selfishness.  Trying to get your way by looking virtuous but indeed manipulating and calculating.  Sorry. There is no group that everyone fits into in God’s creation.  We are all unique.  Look at the saints.

Sorry Ms. Coldiron, I responded to your comment before going to the website.  I agree with the Church teaching on women as stated on the site and quoted from JPII.  I reject the conservative, unchristian limiting of women and have met too many - those who are using our sex as a weapon for limiting our potential and our opportunities.  After viewing the site you do not appear to be that kind.  This is the problem with “labels”.  They are much more a source of division and take us away from what we are truly here for.  Forgive me.  God bless.

By Valenti’s definition of feminism, the original feminists, the Suffragettes would be excluded from feminism because of their opposition to abortion.

A bit of semantics that matters. The original feminists were “suffragists” who advocated voting rights for all, especially women. Both women and men who supported the shared ideas were suffragists. “Suffragettes” were not self-named, but were labeled; they were only the women (thus the -ettes) and were the named for their activities, marching, carrying signs and so forth. Anthony was first a suffragist—one who believed in suffrage—and through her activities became identified as a suffragette. It could be that the activist suffragists included some pro-choice people.

“Feminism” is an inappropriate label for what is actually women’s liberalism or women’s liberationism. I have proposed the term “mulierism” as a better label for the Christian/conservative perspective of feminism.