It's not really surprising to see that some stereotypes are in fact based on reality. If you're seeking to confirm the stereotype of the all-empathy feminist who spouts Leftist dogma and does so in a fashion that garbles the rules of logic, then look no further than this essay from the law-student blogger who publishes
Feministe. In her latest blog posting she unwittingly does harm to her fellow feminists by confirming the worst stereotypes of feminists. She objects to the existence of a non-profit agency, Project Prevention which is headed by Barbara Harris, because it offers $300 to crack-addicted women as an incentive for the women to seek either long term birth control or sterilization.
In order to make her case against this service Jill bends logical reasoning into a pretzel by:
-redefining coercion so as to encompass the voluntary exchange of money for compliance with birth control measures;
-invokes historical injustices going back to the days of slavery and how the women who were victimized during those times were not able to control their own reproduction;
-throws out charges of "It's racist. It's classist. It's ableist" without bothering to make a case for each charge, for the charges alone are deemed to be the equivalent of argumentation;
-Invokes sympathy for females who are incarcerated, (innocent victims) and chastises the non-profit agency (evil eugenicists) for extending the cash offer to these women;
-Decides on a narrative and then bends the facts and logic to support her desired thesis. Consider the following excerpt:
They're drug addicts, which severely compromises their abilities to reason and make healthy decisions.
Here she lays the groundwork for allowing others to make reproductive choices for women, but expect her to flip-out if some pro-life advocate used her reasoning to withdraw reproductive choice from pregnant women. So long as the narrative supports her ideological position then logic or consistency is immaterial.
-Next up, Jill proclaims that there is a correct way to spend a non-profit's resources, and coincidently that correct way happens to be a method she favors. Odd though that she feels entitled to counsel others on how they should spend their money but she doesn't put up her own money or own effort to further the process she favors. In the end she wants to compell action and restrict choice.
-She infers racism from the fact that 43% of the recipients of these grants are Black, when Blacks only comprise 12% of the American population. No exploration of the details concerning drug abuse patterns across racial groups, nor of the reliance of drug abusers on the public welfare system, nor of the racial background of the mothers of crack babies. No, if there isn't racial proportionalism then of course there is racism at work. Funny that the proponents of diversity seem to expect uniformity.
-Feeble attempts at smearing by invoking the names of Steve Sailer, Jim Woodhill, Richard Mellon Scaife and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I suppose in her imagination the case is now closed for anything these folks could support must by defintion be racist and eugenicist.
-Quote Lynn Paltrow as one of my feminist heroes for she disputes the notion that there are such things as crack babies, for
The harm that drugs cause during pregnancy is impossible to measure or single out from other factors (poverty, malnutrition, stress, inadequate pre-natal care and so on). . . . Other symptoms of drug dependence - such as craving' and compulsion' - cannot be detected in babies.
Never mind that:
the fact that most of these children appear normal should not be overinterpreted as indicating that there is no cause for concern. Using sophisticated technologies, scientists are now finding that exposure to cocaine during fetal development may lead to subtle, yet significant, later deficits in some children, including deficits in some aspects of cognitive performance, information-processing, and attention to tasks-abilities that are important for success in school."
To cap off her essay, Jill invokes her Leftist-Racist bona fides by quoting from Steve Sailer's interview of Barbara Harris:
Harris: One of the women who came through our program had 14 babies. She doesn't know who the fathers are, and that's usually the case. A lot of times they don't even know what race the kids are. How sad is that?
Jill: You mean these women might not know if they're giving birth to a darkie? How tragic.
The lesson here is not to expect logic or rhetorical rigor from a feminist intent on posturing.
Update: Amber at Prettier than Napoleon addresses the issue.
Related: Feminist != Support for Reproductive Rights
