* Letter to the Editor

Anne Summers posed the question of whether you can be a political conservative and a feminist. Her answer was yes. I disagree. At its heart, feminism is about acknowledging the systemic oppression of women coupled with a desire to do something about it. It is about recognition of the need for a collective social movement to bring about societal change.

This definition of feminism also influences how one views the contentious issue of abortion. For Summers, abortion is just about individual choice. An alternative feminist approach is to question the role of abortion in alleviating the inconvenient consequences for men of sex. At a time when we are so prepared to acknowledge the massive emotional and spiritual ramifications of children given up for adoption, children born through donated sperm or egg (with many of those children desperate to find out about their biological origins), the forced surrender of babies born to young unwed mothers, and the loss of a baby through miscarriage and stillbirth, why is it that abortion must be reduced to the realm of a simple medical procedure without consequences?

To deny the impact that abortion has on many women is to give men a free pass in terms of their sexual responsibility. After all, if men can undo pregnancy by putting the onus on a woman to have a medical procedure to solve the inconvenience of a baby, where is the justice in that?

Anne Summers equates women’s ability to be independent with the right to control fertility. She says that “women might choose periods of dependence on a husband or someone else while they raise children...but the key is that this is a voluntary state.” How appalling that motherhood can be diminished in this way as a regressive time from which one quickly recovers and bounces back to independence (which sounds suspiciously akin to being more like a man). What feminism must and should advocate for is that women in all our states of being— old or young; married or not; with children or not; gay or straight; sick or well—are equally worthy to any man. Feminism must speak to those in poverty as well as to those who “can choose periods of dependence”, and this means challenging the operative social norms that privilege the individual, and personal financial success, at the expense of community well-being.

Women, especially those who may be reliant on social welfare such as single mothers, should not be demeaned for relying on others for financial support. Indeed, in a just society, that is what we do, just as we should do for the unemployed, for refugees, for those with disabilities, and for those who are aged or infirm. To deny the role of a society in looking after its own citizens and to put financial independence as the pinnacle of achievement is to deny the collective nature of feminism and the characteristics of the social structures that hinder or support women’s choices.

Women’s empowerment must happen but that cannot take place in an environment where our bodies are demeaned and become our enemies. Medical procedures have consequences, including emotional ones and this truth cannot be denied. Let women choose abortion, but to present it to them as a bland option about “freedom of choice” is to reinforce a lie. Put abortion where it belongs—in a social context, and as a consequence of sexuality that involves both women and men. It is frankly not good enough to absolve society of its obligations or to deflect attention from the social structures that impel many women to seek an abortion. If workplaces-and attitudes to women, motherhood and community were different-so might be the choices that women make.

Pauline Hopkins

* This piece was originally a letter to the editor, in response to the Anne Summers article 'There is no such thing as a pro-life feminist', which appeared in The Age on January 22, 2012.