Your second paragraph raises an interesting question about the differences between actions and philosophies. Feminism, in my understanding, is a philosophy, and actions proceed from that philosophy. Being anti-choice is in direct contradiction with that philosophy. It is possible to act in a way that appears to proceed from a certain philosophy without actually holding that philosophy (or, indeed, understanding it). Were I to meet a woman such as you posit, I would say that either she does not understand what’s at play in issues of reproductive choice, or she does not understand feminism. Ultimately, in my understanding, feminism is not about improving the lives of individual women, which is what that woman is engaged with doing. That is certainly an admirable and important thing to do! As well, those are activities engaged in by many feminists! However, in my opinion, feminism is concerned with changing the way that gender operates in our society much more so than it is concerned with making individual women happier, or safer, or healthier, because those things are all in some sense a stop-gap on the larger problem that is causing them sadness/danger in the first place. The question of choice is integral to that change because it deals intimately with whether or not we as a society deem women’s bodies and reproductive capabilities to be a public matter. If a woman is anti-choice, she is tacitly saying that women’s bodies should be publicly controlled, which is anti-feminist, full stop. This is why I think that no matter how many women are helped by a person who is anti-choice, that person cannot be rightly called a feminist.

“I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.”
Rebecca West

@Alyssa – I think this conversation (not just here, but in general) runs into confusion due to how we use the word “conservative”, i.e. as both a label for certain kinds of fiscal/social/political philosophies and as a label for a group of positions that are often but not always associated with those philosophies. Only one of those things — a social conservative philosophy — is essentially incompatible with feminism. Fiscal conservatism, political conservatism, and certain positions that don’t necessarily follow from conservative thought but are often found in its company, are not by their natures incompatible with feminism.

@s.o.a.l.g. – Yes, I agree with you there. I also think it’s worth noting that he’s making the easy argument (“Jenny Sanford won’t be welcomed as a feminist hero because she’s a Republican”) over the more valid and challenging one (“Jenny Sanford won’t be welcomed as a feminist hero because it takes more to be a feminist hero than making one ambiguous choice about your personal life”).

And you know, if that’s the case, more power to them. Actually communicating about changing relationships – possibly to the point of opening them up, if all parties are amenable – may not be a specifically feminist virtue, but it beats the heck out of the usual Cheater-Betrayed Spouse-Other Woman model.

Secondly, Ms. Sanford might have made a different decision if she wanted to run for President. Ms. Clinton might have made a different decision if she knew she wasn’t going to win, and she might change her mind in the future. *shrug*

This seems like a variation of the Feminists hate Stay at Home Moms meme, which is to say, more or less made up.