Are "Progressives" really progressive?

In the last post I talked about Feminists, Custody and Family Law. Here I'd like to expand the scope quite a bit and take on a broader ideology: Progressivism, which I think the bulk of feminism's adherents would say that they are a part of. And at the same time I want to tie it back in with aspects of family law. In particular with the concept of reproductive choice.

Exactly what it means to be a political "progressive" is widely debated and I've not see anything close to a consensus. People seem to just affix the label to themselves and run with it. But there does seem to be some common ground. But first a definition:

Merriam-Webster defines it thusly:

Main Entry: 2progressive
Function: noun
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
2 capitalized : a member of any of various U.S. political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : BULL MOOSE b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948

Wikipedia has a somewhat more focused description:

Progressivism is a political philosophy whose adherents promote public policies that foster social change. As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism mostly refers to the politics of social progressivism and economic progressivism. Progressivism may also mean preferring moderate change, as opposed to minimal or maximum change. In this sense, it is contrasted with conservative, as well as radical ideology.

However I think that the Wikipedia entry for Social Progressivism is the most relevant to any discussion of political ideology.

Social Progressivism is a political ideology opposite to social conservatism. It is neither left nor right. However, many Centre leftists support it. Social progressivism is, in general, the view that as time progresses, so should societal mores and morality.

Social progressives believe that some historical mores/morality are wrong or dogmatic and that present knowledge gained from science and philosophy has disproved many traditional beliefs. In the past, social progressives have advocated abolition of slavery and the right to vote for women. Social progressivism today generally supports same-sex marriage, birth control, and women's right to choose an abortion.

Michel Foucault can be categorised as one of the defenders of social progressivism, though he was not keen to support the idea of the progress of society in the rational (the traditional meaning) way.

The term "social progressivism" is criticised and mocked by the Right as being a meaningless rebranding of social leftism.

Some people, especially from the United States, refer to social progressivism as social liberalism, due to the common view that liberalism is the absolute opposite of conservatism.

Movements linked to social progressivism include abolitionism and feminism.

Except for the part which says that it's "neither left nor right" I think that most self-described progressives would agree with this description. But I'm certain that all of the ones that I know would argue strongly against the notion that their progressivism is not leftist.

All of the progressives that I know uniformly describe themselves as being pro-choice and either feminists or supporters of feminism. Neither of which I have a problem with. Indeed I consider myself nominally supportive of both issues. But I don't see very many supporters of either issue as being very progressive. They tend to take great glee in painting conservatives as harkening back to some mythical golden age. But they themselves do the same thing, albeit to a much more recent time; Roe v Wade and subsequent decisions. Having won the legal right to abortion they drew a figurative line in the sand as if they'd reached the pinacle of progress on the subject of reproductive rights.

The ideology of reproductive choice has long been stagnant in terms of public policy and it's advocacy. Indeed this Wikipedia entry on Reproductive Rights reveals the stagnation by focusing men's reproductive rights solely on issues of contraception and STDs, as if by throwing that bone to men they are somehow being uber-progressive, while focusing women's reproductive rights on those two issues as well as the legal right to abort if contraception fails or even if no attempts were made at contraception.

Now I know that someone reading this is thinking, "but... it's her body!" If the issue of physical sovereignty had been the sole issue upon which Roe and subsequent decisions hinged then I would agree. But it wasn't and isn't. Roe v Wade was based as much on what happens after a child is born as it was on issues of physical sovereignty during pregnancy, as Justice Blackmun's written decision (specifically the second paragraph of section VIII) clearly demonstrates. Blackmun's decision treated post-pregnancy issues as equal to those during pregnancy in finding that there is a constitutional right to privacy which protects the right to abortion. So it's not just about the choice over whether or not to go through the nine months of pregnancy. It's also about whether one wishes to be a parent afterwards. Justice Blackmun explicitly talked about the subsequent 18 or so years of child rearing in justifying his decision. Indeed, if the relevant section of his decision were removed then the entire decision comes crashing down.

Fathers of course bear a significant burden directly associated with child rearing. Whether that be as an active parent in a nuclear family or as an absentee biological parent forced to pay child support or even as a single parent who has to do it all, as is the case in my own situation. But bring up the quaint notion that men deserve our own say in whether or not to be legally compelled to become parents and all that that entails and suddenly the staunchest "progressives" become staunch conservatives not wanting anything beyond what was granted more than 30 years ago to women.

Jazz writing at his Running Scared blog does a spectacular job of dissecting one specific example from earlier this year: Both genders are equal, but one is more equal than the other. The supreme irony in all such cases is that the arguments made by pro-choice feminists against a man having a comparable choice, when boiled down to their fundamental assertions, logically imply that women are inherently incapable or otherwise unable of making informed, responsible choices prior to the one over whether or not to abort. In essence the argument is that since she was incapable of making an informed choice before or during conception that she therefore deserves a get out of jail free card to rectify the situation while he deserves none. Pointing that out of course makes those same feminists bristle with rage. Yet that is precisely what their arguments boil down to.

I submit that any position which seeks to legitimize and perpetuate inequality under the law is inherently unprogressive.

Further reading suggestions:

Livescience.com's Surprise! 1-in-25 Dads Not the Real Father

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. of the Empathic Science Institute has an interesting book out called Progressive Logic

The Wikipedia entry for Progressivism in the United States