![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Don't get me wrong here; I don't like Palin's beliefs, and most especially I don't like that she's a creationist. But whether or not I like what she stands for, I like LESS what I'm seeing against her.
Several well-known pro-choicers, angered by Palin's anti-abortion views and related actions, have suggested that people who agree with them donate money to Planned Parenthood and have the acknowledgement card sent to Palin.
I completely disagree with this action.
Do I find it morally objectionable to donate to Planned Parenthood or similar organizations? No. I may think that a pro-choice person could diversify their donations so as to support not only the choice of contraception, but the choice of prenatal care and adoption if contraception fails (for those of you who are unaware, Planned Parenthood doesn't provide prenatal care or anything beyond interpreting a positive pregnancy test). But if someone wants to donate only to PP, that's their business to decide where their money goes.
Do I find it morally objectionable to send a letter or email to a political candidate, expressing even in the VERY STRONGEST terms exactly how angry their words, actions, and beliefs make the letter-writer, and how much the writer disagrees? I do not, and in fact I think this is about the best action to take in such a situation. If we don't share what we think and why, and how angry it makes us, how will our candidates choose what to discuss, and where they should step aside from their beliefs and act for the best interests of those they represent? I think we should definitely communicate, and that while some people should be exempt from getting angry letters, politicians are never among that group.
Then what do I find wrong with the whole idea? For starters, that such a donation says "I the donator think you should support contraception and abortion, and I'm going to make it appear that YOU support it personally WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT." And yes, it's personal when it's not "McCain/Palin ticket" being written in, or "VP Candidate Palin," but "Sarah Palin." That's the woman's personal name and nothing differentiates a personal strike from a political one in that case.
What happened to all our "choice" arguments? What about "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." Doesn't a woman have a right to make a choice, to choose NOT to use contraception or abortion, and even to choose not to give money toward those things? If Sarah Palin had that choice, we've taken it away from her. I'm not talking about her duty as a political figure to preserve reproductive freedom or her duty to act in the best interests, or wishes, of her constituents; I'm talking about her personal freedom as a woman, the same kind of freedom I have, to give where I choose, or withhold my money where I disagree, and to put my own name behind my actions. We feminists need to remember that it's only been since 1974 that married women like Palin were allowed to control their own money and make their own decisions, rather than having to have their "husband's permission"-- we fought for those rights because women can be financially smart and deserve the right to make their own independent financial choices, just like men. So now that someone has ideas we don't like, why is it appropriate to do something that pantomimes taking that financial freedom AWAY from her? That's an action not worthy of our feminist forebears, in my book.
That's not entirely my main point, though. It may seem like a small step from "Candidate Palin" to "Mrs. Palin the private citizen" and you may not see much of a difference, or think there is one. However, there IS a difference between criticizing Palin and criticizing her family: it's all too possible-- and easy-- to read a "Thank you for your donation" as "We think YOU PERSONALLY should support contraception" and go directly to "You have too many children, Mrs. Palin, and we're giving money so no one else ends up like you." It's easy to read "We think YOU PERSONALLY should support abortion" as "We think more people should have the choice to abort in case of a disabled baby, LIKE YOURS." If people mean that, they should have the guts to write it out and send it to her directly.
Whatever people mean to say to Mrs. Palin, let them stand up and say it, not just take the cowardly way out and pay someone else to send an anonymous vague card smarmily thanking Palin for supporting something she doesn't want to support.
Several well-known pro-choicers, angered by Palin's anti-abortion views and related actions, have suggested that people who agree with them donate money to Planned Parenthood and have the acknowledgement card sent to Palin.
I completely disagree with this action.
Do I find it morally objectionable to donate to Planned Parenthood or similar organizations? No. I may think that a pro-choice person could diversify their donations so as to support not only the choice of contraception, but the choice of prenatal care and adoption if contraception fails (for those of you who are unaware, Planned Parenthood doesn't provide prenatal care or anything beyond interpreting a positive pregnancy test). But if someone wants to donate only to PP, that's their business to decide where their money goes.
Do I find it morally objectionable to send a letter or email to a political candidate, expressing even in the VERY STRONGEST terms exactly how angry their words, actions, and beliefs make the letter-writer, and how much the writer disagrees? I do not, and in fact I think this is about the best action to take in such a situation. If we don't share what we think and why, and how angry it makes us, how will our candidates choose what to discuss, and where they should step aside from their beliefs and act for the best interests of those they represent? I think we should definitely communicate, and that while some people should be exempt from getting angry letters, politicians are never among that group.
Then what do I find wrong with the whole idea? For starters, that such a donation says "I the donator think you should support contraception and abortion, and I'm going to make it appear that YOU support it personally WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT." And yes, it's personal when it's not "McCain/Palin ticket" being written in, or "VP Candidate Palin," but "Sarah Palin." That's the woman's personal name and nothing differentiates a personal strike from a political one in that case.
What happened to all our "choice" arguments? What about "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." Doesn't a woman have a right to make a choice, to choose NOT to use contraception or abortion, and even to choose not to give money toward those things? If Sarah Palin had that choice, we've taken it away from her. I'm not talking about her duty as a political figure to preserve reproductive freedom or her duty to act in the best interests, or wishes, of her constituents; I'm talking about her personal freedom as a woman, the same kind of freedom I have, to give where I choose, or withhold my money where I disagree, and to put my own name behind my actions. We feminists need to remember that it's only been since 1974 that married women like Palin were allowed to control their own money and make their own decisions, rather than having to have their "husband's permission"-- we fought for those rights because women can be financially smart and deserve the right to make their own independent financial choices, just like men. So now that someone has ideas we don't like, why is it appropriate to do something that pantomimes taking that financial freedom AWAY from her? That's an action not worthy of our feminist forebears, in my book.
That's not entirely my main point, though. It may seem like a small step from "Candidate Palin" to "Mrs. Palin the private citizen" and you may not see much of a difference, or think there is one. However, there IS a difference between criticizing Palin and criticizing her family: it's all too possible-- and easy-- to read a "Thank you for your donation" as "We think YOU PERSONALLY should support contraception" and go directly to "You have too many children, Mrs. Palin, and we're giving money so no one else ends up like you." It's easy to read "We think YOU PERSONALLY should support abortion" as "We think more people should have the choice to abort in case of a disabled baby, LIKE YOURS." If people mean that, they should have the guts to write it out and send it to her directly.
Whatever people mean to say to Mrs. Palin, let them stand up and say it, not just take the cowardly way out and pay someone else to send an anonymous vague card smarmily thanking Palin for supporting something she doesn't want to support.
