Fluke, Feminism and the False War on Women
By: Amy Gerwing
What’s left to say about Sandra Fluke and her testimony before congress that hasn’t already been said. From the irrepressible opinions of Rush Limbaugh to the left’s manufactured “war on women”, this story has been covered by every commentator from every angle, ad nauseam. But that’s not going to stop me from getting my two cents in.
On the surface, Sandra Fluke appears as the typical 30 something professional student, working her way through an elite higher-level institutional, keeping one foot solidly planted in political activism with the hopes of one day securing a cushy job on Capitol Hill or in a media conglomerate.
However at second glance, Sandra Fluke represents a growing percentage of women who, for the sake of their feminist tendencies, proudly throw off the oppression of men and traditional relationships like marriage, only to turn around and trade them in for a bigger more oppressive partner; Mr. Government.
In her testimony before Congress, Ms. Fluke reports, “Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.”
For a woman who has lead the Georgetown Chapter of Reproductive Rights, she certainly has a non-egalitarian view of her reproductive responsibilities. Why not ask the men with whom she’s involved to pay half of these contraceptive costs? Why is it her first inclination to go before Congress and play a victim who is incapable of coming up with an additional $1000 year (Although that number has been debunked by various sources).
What has happened to the modern woman who, in her effort to progress through life, has become so dependent on Mr. Government that she has no inclination to work for her own needs, provide for her own path in life, and live out the feminist cry of the liberation movement? In her effort to advance women’s liberation she has inadvertently and ironically chained herself to the greatest oppressor, Mr. Government. He has proven himself time and again to be a hard master, expecting complete loyalty but never promising long term commitment.
While many feminists are heralding Ms. Fluke as the poster child for the “War on Women”, most of us are left scratching our heads wondering how and why an intelligent, educated woman feels she must go before Congress and grovel for one of the cheapest and most accessible forms of healthcare.
Like thousands of other feminist-wannabes, Ms. Fluke has abandoned the spirit of early 19th century suffragists who embraced motherhood (yes, they were very anti-abortion), pursued virtue, and strived for moral order in exchange for a new brand of feminism that is hostile to authority, to men in particular, and to women who would dare to disagree with them.
Yet when the dust has settled and the highly-charged debate has cooled, there remains a real disconnect between the 1960’s hostile feminism and the Sandra Fluke who pitifully claims before Congress, “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.”
Am I supposed to believe these “independent” women are smart enough to get into an elite university like Georgetown, but are unable to come up with $9 a month to purchase birth control pills at the local Walmart? Are they so shameless in their quest for yet more freebies from their sugar daddy, Mr. Government, that they have to put their personal life on display for the entire country to witness? Are they pleased that as a result of their overt attack on private institutions – which by the way, they have every right NOT to attend - they’ve allowed women to once again be defined by what they do in the bedroom rather than what they do in the boardroom?
Ms. Fluke and her allies in the media may wish to believe that they are advancing the cause of women. But truth be told, from the perspective of a woman in the real world, they have done nothing but set the image of women back about 50 years to a time when we were completely dependent on a man for our present and future circumstances; only this time that man’s name is Mr. Government.