The Essence of Feminism - The morality of feminism

Feminism is a profoundly moralistic movement.

It is a system of ideas that not only states or argues for certain items of knowledge, or facts, but gives guidelines as to how to live.

Although this may seem strange in our post-modern world where no one is supposed to tell us how we 'ought' to live, feminism is strongly directive as to what we ought to do. Feminism is a way of life, a way of making decisions, something that will influence life choices and affect the basic values on which individual lives and society is run. In other words, it is a highly moral ideology.

Its claims are also very high - about 'justice' and 'rights' and other such lofty concepts. It takes the high moral ground, battling 'oppression' and 'subjugation'. But a brief look at its moral statements demonstrates that the 'right' way to live can be very confusing indeed.

Inconsistency

It is difficult to find a consistent moral ground for the pronouncements of feminism. On what moral principle, for instance, should a feminist woman make decisions? How can it be decided that an action or a choice is morally allowable? It is certainly not on the basis that it will hurt no one. Feminist decisions have hurt many people - husbands, children, and grandparents who no longer have access to their grandchildren, to name but some. Families cannot be dismantled without severe hurt on many counts, and feminism has unquestionably worked for the dismantling of family structures. According to feminism, this hurt may be justified, if the interests of the woman are served by her leaving.

Perhaps, then, the moral principle is: 'I must do what makes me happy'. A little selfish perhaps, but maybe justified given the down-trodden state of women. Yet this fails too, for feminism has demonstrably made women unhappy. The lives of professional feminists are filled with pain. Erica Jong has had three failed marriages. Germaine Greer has been left grieving after repeated attempts at artificial insemination failed to provide her with a child. Marilyn French has turned to a lesbian relationship simply because her relationships with men were so painful. Facing death, she told one interviewer: 'I don't expect very much from life, and I always expected everything and wanted everything and I wanted it all at once. That's not very realistic and it tends to make for unhappiness.'*

Perhaps the individual pain of pioneers is a necessary price to pay in order to build a better and more equitable society. Perhaps the overriding goal, the moral principle of feminism, is to sacrifice anything for the sake of a society in which women are truly empowered and independent, and therefore happy. However, if feminism is meant to bring that kind of society, it can only be said to have dismally failed.

The free woman?

It seems that feminism cannot give a consistent moral principle that will justify its recommended actions. Feminism wants 'freedom' yet has not, and cannot, provide a coherent view of what 'freedom' consists of. It wants 'justice' and yet consistently recommends courses of action that are palpably selfish and unjust. It wants happiness for women, yet is unable to agree on what a 'woman' is, let alone what would make for her happiness, and has pursued an agenda that has led to widespread unhappiness.

Perhaps some light can be shed on this confusing moral landscape by examining the most prominent and contentious moral issue raised by feminism in the last 30 years - abortion.

Abortion
Take for instance the argument on behalf of the mother's right to autonomy, to control her body and her life. Pregnancy certainly is a major event in a woman's life. It does have a life-changing impact. Why, however, is that any grounds for allowing abortion?

First of all, if the state - as the body of people - for whatever reason thinks killing foetuses is wrong, then the state will restrict whoever is doing it. The state restricts all sorts of behaviour. It restricts us from driving too fast. It forces us to go to school. It even restricts behaviour which may have a compelling motivation: the impact of poverty on a person can be life-threatening, but the state nonetheless restricts activities such as theft.

In any case, consider what this argument is saying about people's rights. Essentially, this argument implies, the baby doesn't have the right to impose upon its mother. Apart from the fact that the baby has no choice in this matter, what if a murdering husband made this claim? What if he claimed that he murdered his wife because she imposed upon his freedom? 'This woman profoundly changed my life and I didn't want her to do that.' Does this allow children to kill their parents? Parents hugely change children's physiology and life choices - does that give the children the right to dispose of their parents?

In any case, how can we have a right of personal autonomy when we have sexual reproduction? It is physiologically impossible. The state does not burden women against their will; the baby does. The state is merely saying that restoring personal autonomy at the cost of someone's life is not legal. In any case, every woman (except those who are raped, or the very small percentage who experience contraceptive failure) has control over her own body. She has, in fact, two opportunities to choose whether or not to have children. She has a choice of whether to have sex or not, and another choice in whether to use contraceptives or not. If a woman has ignored these choices, what right does she have to demand a third go at the cost of another's life?

And there are alternatives to abortion for an unwanted pregnancy.

Women killing women

The feminist position insists that abortion is absolutely, fundamentally, a woman's right. A rather peculiar right it is, that allows women of one age to extinguish the life of women of another age. There is a rather deafening silence about the rights of an unborn woman to choose a fulfilled life. Yet why should abortion be such a fundamental right? What precisely is it that suits the feminist agenda, that makes feminists ignore so many of its detrimental effects for women? Abortion is necessary for 'liberation' for it brings women that much closer to being without moral responsibility at all - able to have irresponsible sex with (almost) impunity. This tells us something about feminism, not about abortion. It tells us that the liberation that feminism wants is the freedom to be the same as the most irresponsible of men. It is the freedom to be utterly self-centred and to sacrifice others for one's own convenience and comfort - the very accusation that feminists have thrown against men.

* Marilyn French in Susan Mitchell (ed.), Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World, HarperCollins, Sydney, 1997, p. 162.

This article is a highly edited extract from Kirsten Birkett's new book, The Essence of Feminism, published by Matthias Media and is available from The Good Book Co (020 8942 0880), price £5. It is used with permission.