Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Late 20 Th Century Anti Abortion - 2,249 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

In Contested Lives, Faye Ginsburg, an anthropologist, offers a sensitive and remarkably balanced study of the abortion conflict as it unfolded, between 1981 and 1986, in the heartland of Middle America. Fargo, North Dakota, the setting for her study, is a conservative, racially homogeneous city that prides itself on having the highest rate of church attendance of any standard metropolitan area in the United States. Like most parts of the country, the Fargo area was initially undisturbed by Roe v. Wade. Local doctors and hospitals simply refused to provide abortions (85 percent of the nations counties lacked abortion services as of 1987), leaving Fargo women with a 300 -mile drive to the nearest abortion service. Then, in 1981, at the instigation of local feminists, a freestanding abortion clinic opened in a quiet, residential neighborhood.

The ensuing controversy made Fargo, according to ABC News, The Community Ripped Apart by Abortion. Ginsburg's most intriguing findings that, at least in Fargo, the pro-choice and anti-abortion activists are not as different, in background or in philosophy, as most commentators seem to believe. No huge gap of class or life experience divides them. Both sides believe they are doing something to advance the cause of women, and to improve the world in general.

And on both sides, women cloak their concerns in a rhetoric of feminine values, particularly the value of nurturance, which they understand to be devalued by a (take your pick) male-dominated or godless society. In fact, Ginsburg's book implicitly challenges the view that the two movements-pro-choice and anti-abortion, or feminist and anti-feminist-are simply ideological opposites one arising in hostile reaction to the other. It leads us to suspect strongly that, at some level far deeper than the calculations of church or party, the two movements have common roots in anxieties widely shared by wom even late- 20 th-century America. The anti-abortion activists Ginsburg interviewed are not, in any clear-cut way, dupes of male religious and political leaders. One of them, in fact, was responsible for getting her evangelical church to take up the abortion issue in the first place. (I do think, however, that Ginsburg slights the importance of male leadership, of doctors as well as of men of the cloth, in legitimizing the grassroots level of the anti-abortion movement. ) Nor are Fargo's female anti-abortion activists the kind of multi issue anti-feminists one might find in Schlaflys or La Hayes outfits. Some of them express sympathy with other feminist goals, and were surprised, when the issue of abortion arose, to find themselves extruded from Fargo's feminist circles.

If there is a single animating perception among these antilabor tion activists, it is the sense that motherhood is a heroic achievement, carried out almost in defiance of the society's dominant values. They describe difficult pregnancies, painful births, frustrated years at home with small children, Marriage is a lot of hard work, and nurturance (seen again as a quintessential female trait by both sides) is, to the pro-lifers, not in-born, but achieved through prayer and personal struggle. To these women, motherhood is a beleaguered role, not only because women today are expected to enter the Labor market, but because nurturance itself is devalued by the larger society. As one of Fargo's anti-abortion activists puts it, ... Weve accepted abortion because were a very materialistic society and there is less time for caring. In the anti-abortionists accounts, abortion is one more assault on the already strenuous business of motherhood, which is, in turn, the last bastion of human tenderness in a cold and uncaring world.

The pro-choice activists in Fargo share many of the same values and perceptions. Most of the ones Ginsburg introduces us to are mothers, some are fulltime homemakers, and all tend to see their pro-choice work as a nurturing activity-directed, in this case, toward other women. Ginsburg characterizes their particular outlook as Midwestern feminism, but I would say that, outside of the factional hothouses of the big cities and university centers, this is simply what all of American grass-roots feminism looks like; it is neither separatist nor single-mindedly success-oriented, but firmly rooted in what both sides would take to be feminine values. The parallel is all the more striking if we return to the branch of the feminist movement that spawned the pro-choice movement in the first place: the womens health movement of the carly 1970 s.

The movements goal, control over our own bodies, was not so much an expression of militant individualism as of the sense that our bodies, and in particular our reproductive functions, were being menaced and invaded by impersonal, uncaring, outside forces. Some of our most prominent older activists-like Norma Swenson, one of the authors of the original Our Bodies Ourselves-had their start in the movement for natural childbirth in the 1950 s. Others, including one of Fargo's pro-choice leaders, had been members of La Leche League, which is devoted to promoting breastfeeding. Far from seeing our biological condition, our capacity for motherhood, as a sink of imminence from which we had to escape, we saw it as something to take pride in, and to protect. My own conversion story is illustrative. I had been involved in feminist projects earlier, but I did not become emotionally engaged until my first pregnancy, in 1970.

The experience of prenatal care in a hospital clinic, followed by the standard brutality of a hospital birth, changed my life, as the expression goes. I wasnt angry (as anti-abortionists might imagine) because I resented giving birth. On the contrary, I was angry (as they might well understand) because in the process of giving birth something intrinsically womanly had been violated and insulted. It was this anger, this sense of violation and loss of control, that propelled me into feminism, and-by no means incidentally into pro-choice activism. It is as if feminism has been fighting on two fronts.

On the one hand, it has been moving ahead to claim new areas for female power and endeavor; on the other hand, it has been looking back to defend territory that seems to be slipping away. In the 19 th century, the new area was the realm of public decision-making, symbolized by suffrage; the old territory included all the productive Labor (spinning, food processing, and so on) that women had once performed in the home. Feminists saw immense promise in the industrial era, and they believed that machinery would eventually level the inequalities that arise &# 038; om the male advantage in physical strength. At the same time, however, they shared with anti-suffragist women an anxiety that women would be left somehow functionless, parasitic, or adrift. Just as both sides used a rhetoric of home values and female moral superiority to advance their claims, both sides agreed on the need to upgrade and even professionalize the domestic functions that remained to them. From the vantage point of the late 20 th century, the shared conservatism of the two sides-I mean the shared concern with conserving what had been or might be lost-is often more striking than their differences.

Second-wave feminism is, by reputation, more monolithic ally committed to modernist goals-to diminishing, rather than upgrading, domestic chores, and to getting out of the house altogether. But second-wave feminism has also been suffused with a sense of loss of function or control, especially in the realm of motherhood and reproduction. In part, I think, this has been a response to the extreme colonization of reproduction-by the medical profession and related enterprises-that was taking place at mid century. On the eve of the feminist revival, in the 1950 s and 1960 s, women were supposed to be committed to reproduction as their lifes work, but under conditions that could only be regarded as degrading. Childbirth had moved decisively into the hos postal in the 1940 s, where it was experienced (if that is the word) under total anesthesia and / or while bound to the delivery table in an ignominious posture. Breast-feeding was discouraged by the medical profession as a faintly disgusting atavism.

Hysterectomies were performed as a means of birth control, or to relieve unrelated symptoms like backaches. Many other factors contributed to the perceived devaluation of motherhood. There was, during the postwar years, a growing current of male cynicism about the entire enterprise, reflected in Phillip Wylies best-selling attacks on Momism and in the early Playboy magazines contempt for wives as parasites. Perhaps most important was the decline, beginning roughly in the 1960 s, of male willingness-and male ability-to provide the financial support for years of female childbearing and nurturance. This trend contributed to the rise of female-headed households, the increasing rate of defaults on child support payments, and to the now well-known feminization of poverty.

For many recent decades, motherhood has come to seem a valiant and often lonely option, more likely to lead to poverty than respect. Feminism and anti-feminism represent two different strategies for dealing with these dislocations and the larger atmosphere of disrespect. The antifeminist approach is to try to fortify the institution of marriage-in part through religious and pro-family ideology and to hope that it will once again become a safe haven for full-time mothers and their children. In this endeavor, abortion is indeed a threat.

For, if abortion is a womans choice, then it is harder to argue that the support of mothers and children is, or should be, a male responsibility. Feminists would also like to see men become more responsible in such matters as child support, but they are not depending solely on marriage to provide the space and the support for motherhood. They want women to be able to earn enough to support a family, if necessary; and they want government and employers to help out with paid parental leave, flexible hours, child-care facilities, and so forth. In the feminist strategy, the abortion option is indispensable: as the responsibility for children devolves increasingly to women, so must the choice as to when to bear them. Still, these strategic differences ought to leave some common ground for action-around the reform of medical practices, for example, or the campaign for parental leave.

It is this hope that seems to motivate Contested Lives. In Fargo, at least, there was some basis for hope. There, pro-choice and anti-abortion activists are likely to know each other in other contexts, and even to have coffee together after appearing in public debates. In 1985, Ginsburg reports, women from both sides began to meet in a loosely structured group Pro-Dialogue, which identified a common goal in working toward reducing, as much as possible, the need for abortion, and fighting together to solve some of the problems women face.

But regretfully-my own regret is considerably sharpened by Ginsburg's excellent book-I do not see much hope for a more ongoing or widespread rapprochement between the two sides on the abortion issue. For one thing, the anti-abortion movement has become much less a womens movement than it was when Ginsburg broke off her field work in Fargo. The visible leadership of the movement has passed decisively to male evangelicals, like Operation Rescues Randall Terry, who see their struggle as part of a larger effort to bring about a theocratic social order. The tactics, too, have changed. Although bombings and violence have declined, militant confrontations-aimed at shutting down the clinics and, apparently, at terrorizing their clientele-are now the order of the day.

Prayer vigils are one thing, but it is hard to imagine the participants in recent clashes-which are arranged, these days, with military precision and directed by walkie-talkies-having much to say to each other over a cup of coffee. Besides, even among women, the vague and cozy notion of feminine values may afford less common ground than Ginsburg seems, at times, to wish. As she points out, feminists (in Fargo and elsewhere) see nurturance as a principle to be extended beyond the bonds of mother and child, husband and wife, to members of the community, people in the workplace, and even the nation as the whole. Feminists understand that nurturance is only trivialized by being sequestered in the home or assigned exclusively to women. The goal is to institutionalize and thus to extend the kinder, gentler impulse-through an expanded welfare state, for example, and a more accountable private economy. And it is this vision that links the feminist movement to the left or progressive end of things, and sends feminists out, not only to defend womens rights as narrowly construed, but to oppose militarism (seen as the antithesis of nurturing) and to fight for a more just and equal economic order.

Anti-feminists, on the other hand, including Fargo's anti-abortion activists, seem more concerned to shore up nurturance in the private sphere-within the family, or within that most private of all relationships, between a woman and the embryo she carries. And this emphasis on reforming the private and domestic sphere is at least consistent with the New Rights social vision, in which tenderness may flourish within each household (or, more narrowly, within each woman), while militarism and the more reckless forms of capitalism are free to rampage out of doors. Still, something like Fargo's Pro Dialogue might be worth a try. Where there is so much rhetoric about nurturance, about the value of each human life, about the dignity of each womans choices -there ought to be some basis for seeing each other as human beings worth listening to.

And if we are just beginning, after a postponement of two decades, a serious, mass, grass-roots, pro-choice movement 326


Free research essays on topics related to: feminist movement, pro choice, anti abortion, late 20 th century, grass roots

Research essay sample on Late 20 Th Century Anti Abortion

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com