Not All Feminists Understand What It Means To Be Feminist
Feminist: fem·uh·nist/ˈfemənəst/ noun. a person who fights for social, political, and economic equality of the sexes
We have women with great influences that claim to be feminist, but many of the times, these women only positively influence a specific group of women. Feminism means to support the complete equality of the sexes, but some women advocate and propose new adjustments that still compromise women’s human rights.
Ivanka Trump, the first daughter of the United States, has widely publicized herself as feminist through her book and hashtag, #womenwhowork. Although she claims to stand with women and women’s human rights, recently, Trump proposed the separation of clinics between abortion care and all other health care services in Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood specified they don’t use government funds, taxes, for abortions prior to Trump’s suggestions. Regardless of Trump’s effort to keep abortions accessible in Planned Parenthood, without government funds, abortions are inarguably part of health care and therefore part of our human rights.
Planned Parenthood does not accept any federal funds, like Medicaid, to proceed with abortions because of the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits any federal funds to support abortions and majority of women in lower-class (women who can’t afford and support a child and women also can’t afford the abortion itself) are effected by this amendment. The amendment has noticeably divided the country, among with those who believe any form of arrangement is acceptable and those who don’t want to stop fighting until women have complete rights over their body. Abortion is part of human rights; therefore, any women who want to receive abortions should be provided with the proper financial support by the government like they would for any other health care services. Many poor women are placed into situations where they are forced into proceeding with an unwanted pregnancy (that they can’t afford) or seeking a more invasive, expensive, and unsafe abortion well into their second trimester. The unfortunate circumstances developed with the birth of the amendment and these lower-class women’s human rights were again, adjusted.
These laws that limit and define women’s human rights are passed through the sovereignty of the people — an important factor that establishes our democratic country. Michel Foucault’s book, “Society Must Be Defended”, addresses this paradoxical situation, ‘let live or let die’.
“Sovereign power’s effect on life is exercised only when the sovereign can kill. The very essence of the right of life and death is actually the right to kill: it is at the moment when the sovereign can kill that he exercises his right over life” (240).
Sovereignty has been practiced and used to essentially to, let die. Women are fighting against these laws that were established through popular sovereignty because the laws degrade, dehumanize and impair women’s full human rights.
Going back To Trump’s proposal, the proposal was her gesture and support towards women, but the intentions and purpose of the proposal is questionable. Her suggestion will compromise women’s rights because two clinics still won’t provide women full rights over their body. Trump doesn’t fully support all women (especially women in lower-class) because the abortion care that women need still won’t be considered and supported as a part of their health care. Her proposal contradict women’s full human rights over their body’s needs, so why was this proposal made and who benefits from it?
Poor women are the most common victims of these new proposals and laws; not only in relation to health care, but also in their workplace. Sheryl Sandberg’s famous book, Lean In, guides and encourages women to push forward, speak their minds during conferences, and question their bosses. Although her book successfully delivers a powerful message, the message only targets and empowers a specific group of women; women like herself, educated and white. Most of the times, women are already aware of their capabilities to speak against their authorities, but not all women have the privilege and entitlement in their workplace to speak and challenge the system.
White feminist can be translated into upper-class feminist, which arguably means these feminist don’t fight for equality among all the social and economic classes. Sandberg’s book was controversial because women are curious as to how they are supposed to practice power even when complete obedience doesn’t promise them a job, food, and other necessities. Women in lower-class are still desperately fighting and compromising their voices and beliefs to pay the bills and/or support their families. And some of these women were once pressured or threatened to lose their job if they didn’t become sterilized, in efforts of that company to prevent any inconveniences (any health issues in relation to the reproductive system, paid maternity leave…etc). So for these women, “leaning in” isn’t really an option. How are these women supposed to “lean in” when they would be risking their jobs for comments, questions or disobedience?
Hatefully and horrifyingly, only 1% of the population control approximately half of the entire wealth in the United States. Despite the fact that we live in a democratic country where popular sovereignty is being practiced, the 1% have the most control and influence over our bodies; according to Foucault’s argument, they also have the rights to ‘let die’. The 1% doesn’t get effected by the laws they form because the laws effect the lower-class population, so why is the 1% controlling half of the wealth and laws that effect the rest of the 99%?
Whose voice should we be listening to? Whose voice matters? And who should be making the laws?
