Decision ‘08

Nora Ephron Is Not A Feminist

Why? Because if a person doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose, she can’t be a feminist:

Laura Bush isn’t a feminist. You can’t be a feminist if you don’t believe in a woman’s right to choose.

Well, that’s brilliant stuff…and let me just extend that by saying, if a woman is not free to choose whether she supports abortion, she hasn’t got the right to choose, either, and therefore, by denying Laura Bush that right, it stands to reason that Nora Ephron is not a feminist, either.

Or are we just talking about abortion on demand as the sole issue defining women’s rights? Because if Ephron believes that, she’s a sad example of her sex, and could learn a lot by studying the rights of women in, say, Iran, or perhaps Afghanistan under the Taliban, as Mrs. Bush herself knows:

“A lot of what I do internationally does have to do with women’s issues, with women’s rights, with the education of women and girls, because it’s so important and because women - as we saw in Afghanistan - and girls have been left out, actually forbidden to be educated…. You can’t tell me that mothers and fathers don’t love their daughters. I know they do and want the best thing for their daughters and sons the world over. I truly believe that. And if women are educated, they’re more likely to be able to make wise and healthy decisions for their children.”

I don’t think abortion’s real high on their list, Nora…basic survival and dignity, maybe…

God, how does she sleep at night with that cloud of sanctimoniousness hanging over her head?…

12 Responses to “Nora Ephron Is Not A Feminist”

1 peter Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
“If a woman is not free to choose whether she supports abortion, she hasn’t got the right to choose, either, and therefore, by denying Laura Bush that right, it stands to reason that Nora Ephron is not a feminist, either.”

Nora Ephron isn’t denying Laura Bush her right to choose. If Laura Bush opposes abortion and doesn’t want her daughters to get one, then fine: nobody is forcing them to get abortions. In contrast, those who oppose abortion work to prevent those who feed differently about abortion from exercising their choice. It is those who insist that others follow their beliefs who are denying the right to choose, not those who favor giving women a choice to act as they see fit.
2 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Sorry, not buying what you’re selling - intellectual lockstepism is the basis of all totalitarian societies - and that’s what Ephron is pushing…

One woman’s ‘right to choose’ is another’s ‘murder’…

This is the mandated ‘proper’ view, according to Ephron; nothing else is permissable…
3 Aaron Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Did Laura Bush ever purport to be a feminist in the first place?

And, if I recall correctly, the First Lady said on national television that she didn’t think Roe vs. Wade should to be overturned.
4 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Put another way - if I strongly believe abortion is not permissable, morally, except in cases of mother’s health, rape, and incest, I can’t choose to advocate my viewpoint politically, and still stand for women’s rights in other areas? This is the only definition of feminist - abortion-on-demand supporter?

It’s labelling, and it’s juvenile…
5 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Aaron, actually, if you follow the link, she did in fact claim to be a feminist…
6 peter Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Mark: I’m ambivalent about the question you ask.

On one hand, there is a difference between “advocating your viewpoint” and insisting that the power of the state be used to enforce it. Some people feel that homosexuality is an abomination, but working to put all gay people behind bars is something else entirely. I may feel that it is barbaric to go to the forest to shoot animals, but I wouldn’t think of denying hunters the right to practice their “sport” (sport implies a fair contest: using a gun to shoot birds or deer doesn’t strike me as much of a contest).

However, the other side is that if I thought that abortion was murder, I would probably feel that Randall Terry is the new Martin Luther King. There are certain moral principles which should trump individual rights, and I understand the thinking of those who believe that abortion is one of those things. If you really think that aborting a fetus is tantamount to killing a child, then I can see why some people would work so feverishly to prevent it.

Call me cynical, but I wonder what those who are diehard against abortion would do when their sixteen year old daughter gets pregnant. Certainly there are some who would force their kid to bring the child to term. However, when push comes to shove, I question how many “pro-life” people would commit the act which they are trying so hard to prevent others from doing.
7 Sean P Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Mark, don’t forget, the meaning of words change over time. Thirty years ago, feminism may have meant more than just rigid and slavish adherance to the agenda of NOW and EMILY’s Yeast, but that’s what the phrase has come to mean now and, frankly, there’s not much use fighting it.

The upside is that there is an entire generation of women who are not conservative or traditionalists by any means, but who run from the label “feminist” like its the plague.
8 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Sean P, good point - and peter, I hear what you’re saying, and I think you know from my previous posts (I hate abortion, yet think it should be legal and rare) that I’m not a fanatic on this issue - I just have a visceral reaction to people who are just so sure their viewpoint is the only correct one, such as Nora here…
9 Chris J. Breisch Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 6:49 am
peter, I can answer the question you ask about the daughter because I’ve given it a lot of thought over the years. If my daughter ever comes to me and tells me she wants to get an abortion, I will do the following (and I’m very pro-life):

a) talk to her and try to understand why she thinks it’s necessary
b) make sure she understands the ramifications and options, and gently try to persuade her on one of the options.

(Personally, this is what I don’t get about pro-abortion women…what do they do when five years later, say, they’re at a park, and see a mom playing with her four-five year old? Is it possible not to think “That could be me. That could be my child”? That’s what I mean about considering the ramifications.)

Finally, in the end, once I have listened to her and she has listened to me, if she is still set on getting the abortion, I will go with her to the clinic, doctor, whatever, and I will hold her hand through the whole thing. Why? Because I love my daughter and I always will, and she needs to know that and she definitely needs my support at such a difficult time. Unconditional love is exactly that. You love and support someone even when you disagree with their life choices.
10 peter Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 6:56 am
That’s a great answer, thanks –
11 John Says:
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Although it may seem absurd, in a sense the prerequisite of a pro-choice position
for admittance into the feminist ideology makes some sense. This is because feminism is not what it purports itself to be. It has no central moral principles. It is a complex array of political agendas held by a group of social leftists who call themselves “feminists”. The holy grail of this set of agendas is, for them, unrestricted abortion.
12 Sphinx Says:
April 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Dogs can’t choose if they have 4 legs or not. Even so, to be called a dog, you have to have 4 legs?