Weekend Reads

It’s the first weekend of June…my, does time fly!  Here are good posts to check out this weekend:

The mainstream media has covered the opting out debate a whole lot.  But what’s missing from this coverage is that opting out, leaving one’s professional career to raise a family, is something that only women with privilege can truly do.  Ann Friedman has a piece out called  When Opting Out Isn’t an Option that discusses the need to shift the conversation about women and work.  She includes women who don’t have the luxury to opt out, the majority of women in this country, in the picture and discusses how the recession can be an opportunity to reframe the opting out debate.

There’s a great op-ed in the New York Times today about Ann Lohman, an English midwife who emigrated to New York and committed suicide in 1878 after years and years of anti-choice harassment.  She called herself Madame Restell, sold herbs and pills designed to end pregnancies, performed abortions if the herbs and pills did not work which she charged on a sliding scale depending on her patient’s ability to pay, taught sex education classes, provided shelter for pregnant women, delivered babies and set up an adoption service.  The op-ed examines Lohman’s legacy as a a champion for reproductive rights and illustrates how anti-choice violence continues to threaten those who do dedicate their lives to defending reproductive rights.

One of the reasons why people reject feminism is because it historically, and continues to, exclude certain marginalized bodies like the LGBTQ community and people of color.  Racism Review tackles this issue in Gloria Steinem, Where Are You Now? During Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign feminist activist Gloria Steinem wrote a piece in the NYTimes condemning the mainstream media’s sexist treatment of Clinton.  However, Sonia Sotomayor has been the target of countless racist and sexist attacks ever since her nomination but prominent white feminists who have publicly condemned sexism before, like Steinem, have been silent.  Why have none of them spoken up for Sotomayor?

Transphobia and violence against the trans community remains persistent throughout the world.  There have been many recent violent hate crimes against trans people in various countries: the U.S., Honduras, the Dominican Republic, India, Turkey, Canada, Serbia, Peru and Venezuela.  Bird of paradox reports that this year alone in Venezuela, there have been more than 20 trans people murdered so far.  This is deeply saddening and upsetting – launching violent assaults and murdering people are not appropriate or acceptable ways to treat the trans community.

Privilege is something that we continually think and write about.  But what exactly is privilege?  One way that people think of privilege is “You haven’t thought of these issues in the same way that I have because they don’t affect you in the same way.”  Another way to think about privilege is “You don’t have to think of these issues because they don’t affect you.”  Echidne of the Snakes has a post titled Thoughts on privilege (by Suzie) in which she discusses privilege and how it plays into our lives.

There’s a post on Womanist Musings about how an eight year old girl from Winnipeg showed up at school with her arms covered with white supremacist markings like swatstikas (which were “sun wheels that represented peace and love”) and “H.H.” for “Heil Hitler”.  Her parents taught her that Hitler was a “good man ‘for killing lots of people that didn’t belong there'”.  When a detective asked her for her parents’ thoughts on ethnic minorities, she responded that they felt that ethnic minorities “‘should be killed or go back to their country'”.  She also said “Some people from Pakistan carry AIDS and they could kill you”.  Remember that these insidious words are coming from the mouth of an eight year old.  Her parents clearly are not setting a good example in perpetuating their bigotry.

Take Action!

Here are two good petitions circulating that you should sign:

Human Rights First has a We Can End Torture campaign:

Tell President Obama: We need a non-partisan inquiry to make sure we don’t repeat past mistakes

The recent reports on torture and President Obama’s comments have set the wheels in motion—but we need your help to keep up the momentum towards a full reckoning on the United States’ use of torture.

Human Rights First and other leading human rights organizations have created a joint petition that calls on President Obama to set up a nonpartisan inquiry to evaluate the full cost of abuses, look at how we got there, and come up with safeguards so we don’t repeat the same mistakes. The U.S. needs to invest in a forward-looking strategy on intelligence gathering that gives interrogators training and guidance on which techniques work, and which techniques – such as torture — don’t.

Momentum is on our side – please let the Obama administration know that the public wants the truth about torture. Our national security depends on it.

Planned Parenthood has a Health Care Reform campaign too:

It’s a simple fact that is ignored far too often: for three million women, men, and teens, Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers are not just a place to go for birth control, sex education, or other reproductive care.  For these people, Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers are the only accessible source for health care, period.

That’s why Planned Parenthood must be an essential part of any health care reform.  Our affiliate health centers are already serving the communities most in need of a system that works.  Health center staff understand the issues these women and families face, they hear their stories, they see them everyday.

The fact is, nobody else can speak for the women, men, and teens Planned Parenthood health centers serve quite like we can – and we need lawmakers to listen.  Please help by signing our petition now.

In Memory of Dr. George Tiller

I am a bit late on blogging about this so by this point, most of you probably already heard about the sad and unfortunate assassination of Dr. George Tiller this past Sunday, May 31st. Dr. Tiller was an abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas, and was one of the only doctors in the country who performed late term abortions. He was shot and murdered in the foyer of his church on Sunday morning while he was distributing the weekly bulletin. He has endured and survived a lot of anti-choice violence in the past, including physical assaults, attacks on his clinic, and threats. Scott Roeder is the main suspect responsible for Dr. Tiller’s murder and is being held in a Wichita jail.

The National Organization for Women declared today as a Day of Mourning for Dr. Tiller. He is a true vagina warrior, one who has steadfastly committed himself and his life to women’s health care and providing such an essential and necessary service to many women in need. He will certainly be missed in the feminist community.

Here are some links where you can get more coverage on Dr. Tiller’s murder:

Patients Remember Dr. Tiller

The life of a brave man

That’s Quite the Glass House You’ve Got There

George Tiller: Casualty of the Culture Wars?

Why Clinic Violence is Obama’s Problem

Will Media Report Dr. George Tiller’s Murder as an Act of Terrorism?

Community Blog Roundup and a Cartoon: In Honor of Dr. Tiller

Economic downturn affects abortion seekers and abortion providers

According to an article in today’s LA Times, the Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles County has 15% more patient cases now than they had at this time last year.  And ACCESS in Oakland, CA, an organization that helps low income women with reproductive health care, 72% of calls received are from women contemplating abortions which is up from 60% last year.

Executive director Destiny Lopez says that most of the women calling already have families but feel like they don’t have the financial capacity to have another child, contrary to popular stereotypes of childless women getting abortions.

The article points out the unsurprising fact that women are factoring in the economy and their current financial circumstances when deciding whether or not to have children.  Women are realizing that they cannot afford to raise a child (or in many instances, another child) during these economic times, whereas under better economic circumstances they would’ve just had continued their pregnancies and had children.

However, the economic downturn has also made it difficult for women seeking abortions to get those abortions.  For low income women who are already struggling, paying for an abortion can be very difficult.  The cost of an abortion  ranges from around $450 for a first-trimester abortion to $1,200 for a second trimester abortion.  Not all insurance companies are willing to cover the cost of an abortion and enrolling in Medi-Cal, California’s health care system for the poor, can often be a slow and tedious process.  In some  cases, women who wanted to have first-trimester abortions and scrambled to put enough money together found out that by the time their insurance came through, it was too late for a first-trimester abortion and they were uncomfortable with having a second-trimester abortion (nor did they have enough money to cover one).

Abortion clinics are also suffering due to the economic recession.  Some clinics have had to shut down.  For example, the Women’s Choice Clinic, one of Oakland’s oldest feminist abortion clinics, closed not too long ago because it couldn’t pay all of its bills.  This increases the burden of abortion clinics, like Planned Parenthood, that are still open and have more women seeking abortions.

A more optimistic point of the article is the fact that more women today are conscientious of using birth control than they were a year ago:

A recent Gallup Organization survey conducted for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that nearly one in 10 married woman indicated that the economy was a factor in their decision to postpone a planned pregnancy. That same survey found that one in five women is more concerned about having an unintended pregnancy than a year ago and about one in five women is more conscientious about using birth control.

Roadblocks to Health Care, and why our current system fails women

This week is National Women’s Health Week, and the Department of Health and Human Services just released a report titled Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System does not work for Women.

The report outlines roadblocks to health care – “Women are more vulnerable to high health care costs than men“, how and why the health insurance system we have now is in need of reform – “The current health insurance framework leaves too many women uncovered”, how the individual insurance market fails women it should be serving – “Higher costs and inadequate benefits make the individual insurance market an unreliable choice for women”, and the implications of all this – “As a result, women are more likely than men to experience difficulty accessing care.”

The conclusion of the report? “Comprehensive health care reform is needed to level the playing field, and make health care accessible and affordable for all women.”

Friday reads

Sorry posting has been slow these past few days… It’s been a busy week, especially with packing up and moving out.  But here are a few good reads to catch up with:

Is there really a credible correlation between body measurements and mortality?

“Mad pride”?  People are rejecting pills and other prescriptions in our hyper-medicalized society.

Former soldier Steven Green is found guilty for premeditating and carrying out a gang rape of a 14-year old Iraqi girl and then murdering her and her family.

Done asking, done telling, and now done serving? The first Arabic linguist was dismissed from the Army for coming out on television.

More barriers to health care for same-sex couples.

Racially charged images in Gisele Bündchen’s latest photo shoot.

Dick Cheney, we are done with you. For the last time, please shut up.

An interactive map of hate groups active in the United States, as compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No, we are still not a “post-racial” nation.

Happy Mother’s Day Michelle Obama! (And mothers everywhere!)

An interview with Kathryn Joyce about her new book Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

An interview with Kim Longinott, feminist documentary filmmaker.

America is NOT a Christian nation despite what the Christian right wingers keep saying.

A female celebrity has gained weight?!  Gasp!  How dare she!!  Unsurprisingly, more fatism in the media.

42% of homeless youths are LGBTQ identified.  More on why/how homelessness is a critical LGBTQ issue and what can be done.

Obama’s been in office for 100 days now!

Obama’s been in office for 100 days now and different critics have been weighing in on how he’s been doing.  Here are some highlights of his first 100 days:

– On January 23rd, Obama overturned the global gag rule, “which prevented US foreign aid recipients from counseling women about the availability of safe abortion services and from advocating for the liberalization of abortion laws.”

– On January 29th, Obama signed The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was also the first bill he signed into law.  The Act restores a woman’s ability to bring pay discrimination complaints up to 180 days after each discriminatory paycheck and to sue for pay discrimination.

– On February 4th, Obama  expanded government health insurance to provide critical support to low-income children and families and extending coverage to 11 million children.

– On March 6th, Obama appointed Melanne Verveer to fill the newly created position of the ambassador at large for global women’s issues.

– On March 11th, Obama established the White House Council on Women and Girls.

– On March 19th, Obama pledged to sign the UN Declaration to decriminalize homosexuality.

For more, check out the Huffington Post’s LGBT Report Card for Obama’s first 100 days, and RHReality Check’s evaluation.

Older news: FDA approves Plan B for 17-year-olds

As detailed in many news papers and other media outlets last week, including the Boston Globe, the FDA will be approving over-the-counter Plan B for people ages 17 and older.

Plan B, also known as emergency contraception (EC), is medication that uses a high dose of hormones to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining, which prevents pregnancy; if a woman takes it within three days of having unprotected sex (or sex with faulty birth control), she has an approximately 89% chance of preventing possible pregnancy.  Plan B does not induce abortion; it will not affect a pregnancy that has already occurred.

Why is it so important that emergency contraception be available over-the-counter (or, more accurately, behind the counter)?  And why is it so essential that it be available to women who are under the legal age to have sex (but still above the age of consent)?

First of all, we need to have EC available over-the-counter.  After all, what’s the alternative?  Let’s say a man and a woman have sex on a Friday afternoon, and the condom breaks; can the woman call her doctor and make an appointment?  Probably not.  Many clinics aren’t open on Saturdays either, which means that there’s a high chance the woman will have to wait until Monday to see her doctor, if she’s not, you know, at work or in class.  If she can’t take herself to the appointment, she’ll have to get someone to take her (like a parent).  And EC is most effective the sooner it’s taken.

With EC over-the-counter, this woman could just go to the store (or her sexual partner could go to the store) and pick up some EC so she can start taking it right away.  Tadah.

Next, why is this drop in age so important?  Consider that many teens under the age of 18 are having sex; even if it seems irresponsible at that age, or perhaps not the wisest decision, it’s happening.  Denying it won’t make it stop.  And so it stands to reason that women under the age of 18 might find themselves in a tough situation, where they didn’t realize they could insist on using contraception, couldn’t access it, or used it and had it malfunction (condoms do break, and aren’t even 100% effective when used perfectly).  If you’re a high school aged woman, you might be keeping sex a secret from your parents; how are you supposed to explain to them that you might get pregnant and you need to hit up the doctor?

Conservatives against this measure argue that since 17-year-olds shouldn’t be having sex, they don’t need access to Plan B.  Many also argue that preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining is the same thing as abortion.

Of course, arguing that 17-year-olds shouldn’t be having sex is silly; it doesn’t matter if they should or shouldn’t because many are. Not all are, of course; but those who decide to should have access to the right information and resources, including contraception and emergency contraception.

And it’s also inaccurate to claim that EC is an abortion pill.  If a fertilized egg doesn’t adhere to the uterine lining, there’s no pregnancy, regardless of what prevented the adherence (EC, chance, biology).  The argument against EC on these grounds is nothing more than the basic “all contraception is wrong” argument that many people believe in, but that is not a scientific or legal issue (merely a personal and/or religious one).

What’s the next step here?  While, again, many people aren’t happy with the availability of EC to anyone and even more unhappy with the lower age restriction, the age restriction needs to be abolished completely.  EC isn’t like cigarettes.  It’s not recreational.  It’s there for women’s health purposes, and it’s for emergencies. The side effects are generally the same as the side effects that many women experience from high-dose birth control pills.  EC is not dangerous to take, but who would take it unless they needed to?  I, for one, have had to switch to lower-dose birth control because having morning sickness ain’t fun; there’s no basis for believing that women will take EC for funsies.

Will it make women less responsible about birth control?  Well, birth control is a two-way street; men and women need to be responsible for it.  And just as better sex education (as opposed to abstinence-only sex education) improves contraception use and seems to be a better way to reduce abortion rates (as abstinence-only has failed miiiiserably), it will probably help keep the need for EC lower than opponents fear it might be.

Let’s not let “slippery slope” and morality arguments prevent women from accessing what is needed to be healthy and retain choice.  And remember, EC is available at Tufts Health Services.

Just another reason that Sarah Palin is NOT a feminist

Let’s hark back to the lovely Sunday Stupidity post this week and the ridiculous idea that some people have about Sarah Palin being a feminist.  Now, It’s cool for feminists to have differing opinions (differing opinions can make feminist debates interesting), but Palin is most certainly not simply a feminist with a different opinion.  And here’s another reason why she is definitely NOT a feminist.  We can add this to the list right next to charging rape victims for evidence collection kits, censoring her family members, her anti-choice political stance (even in cases of rape and incest), the abstinence-only sex education bullshit, and so much more.

Massachusetts law provides legal protection for breastfeeding mothers

Beginning this Thursday, breastfeeding in public will be legal in the state of Massachusetts (reported in the Boston Globe).  This is a major step in women’s rights, even though it might seem insignificant, or possibly even unrelated to alleviating sexism.  “How the heck is that the case?” you might ask.

First of all, allowing public breastfeeding allows women to make a choice about how they’re going to feed their children.  While the “breastfeeding vs. formula” battle rages on, and each feeding method becomes the “better” one for a time before being topped by the other, what matters is that women can choose which method fits their lifestyles and their beliefs.

When breastfeeding is unaccessible, and women risk sex offender status when they breastfeed in public, that choice disappears, or at least becomes less of a choice.  And while many people argue that women could just breastfeed in the bathroom, or that workplaces should provide breastfeeding areas, they’re just making the choice to breastfeed even less accessible.

Secondly, by making breastfeeding a public action, we are desexualizing breasts.  Breasts are not inherently sexual, as seen in cultures where topless women don’t cause a sensation or make a statement by being bare.  If we shift from treating breasts as sexual objects to viewing breasts as what some people’s chests look like, we can move towards desexualizing the female body in general, and reducing objectification.  I’m not arguing that breasts can’t or shouldn’t be sexy.  After all, men’s chests can be sexy; the difference currently is that men can bare their chests in public without being arrested for indecent exposure.  And since women’s bodies and breasts are hypersexualized, if we desexualize them, they might go from hypersexual to just normal sexual.

And, once again, if we reduce sexualization of breasts, we reduce objectification.

The law itself doesn’t explicitly do any of these things.  It does not state that its goal is to reduce objectification, and I doubt that that is the goal.  But as our culture norms shift, the attitudes of the younger generation also change, which we are seeing today with the growing support of LGBT rights.  Maybe someday, topless women won’t cause such a fuss.

Mental Illness and Parenthood

In an April 4th article entitled “Should I?” on Boston.com, Marya Hornbacher describes how her mental illness has affected her decision to have children.  She explains how she and her husband were in the middle of the adoption process when she had a massive depressive episode and lost her confidence in her ability to raise a child.  Her story provides excellent insight into the ways that mental illness affects women, although I am by no means suggesting that her experience is something that men would never have.

Hornbacher describes her feelings as she lay in the psych ward during a major depressive episode:

I was so sure, at that moment, that I was making the right decision. I believed, for that one life-changing instant, that I truly wasn’t capable of raising a child, that any child would be better off without me as its mother. Lying there in a hospital bed, the idea of taking care of something so fragile as a child, when I couldn’t even take care of myself, made my head spin. So I said no.

It was obvious: I wasn’t up for that kind of responsibility. Wasn’t reliable enough, was maybe too volatile to be trusted. Yes, maybe I had wanted it, but what about the best interest of the child? That day, I, like a whole lot of people, believed that mental illness really did disqualify me as a parent.

Now, I’m not so sure.

Hornbacher relates one of the major concerns of most expectent parents, or those people thinking about becoming parents: Will I be good enough to raise a child?  In this case, it’s clear that Hornbacher’s insecurities about her abilities to parent stem, as far as she can tell, from her bipolar disorder.

She describes how she first coped with the disorder:

Like a great many people with mental illness, I resisted my diagnosis – who wants to believe they’re mentally ill? – and with it resisted the medication that would make it manageable. And like about half of people with bipolar, I struggled with substance abuse for years. For someone with a mental illness, drinking and doing drugs is like pouring gas on an already smoldering fire.

Here, she also reveals a connection between mental illness and drug abuse; when you’re mentally ill, sometimes drugs can seem like good ways to cope with mental illness.  It’s also important to remember that there’s no such thing as a “bad” coping mechanism; there are unhealthy ones, to be sure, and substance abuse is one of them.  But Hornbacher’s resistance to the diagnosis also speaks to the stigma that comes with mental illness; she tried to manage her illness in an effort to convince herself and others that she was fine.

She explains what it’s like to be mentally ill in a society where mental illness is an invisible marker:

This means that, in most ways, I’ve left behind the chaos of my earlier life and joined the ranks of “normal.” People who manage their mental illness are all around you, and you probably don’t know it, because they look and act just like you. They go to work, buy groceries, drink lattes, and have kids. That’s what’s funny – I imagine a whole lot of people would think I’d make a great mom, right up till the moment they learned I have a mental illness.

Her use of quotation marks around the word “normal” is extremely revealing; her description places mental illness very clearly among other forms of identity that aren’t considered normal.  Mental illness, like queer sexuality, it something that tends to be invisible until someone discloses it; then, opinions may change.  As Hornbacher said above, people might think she’d make a fantastic parent so long as they weren’t aware of her mental illness.  She has to hide behind the “normal” facade in order to be considered acceptable as a member of society and as a parent.  This is not to suggest that she and others with mental illness shouldn’t receive treatment and find coping mechanisms that help them lead happy lives.  Instead, the perceptions of mental illness and the social ostracization are what become problematic. Hornbacher could be the best parent to ever exist on the face of the planet, but as long as people know she is mentally ill, she won’t be recognized as a capable parent.

While signing books after a lecture on her memoir, Hornbacher recalls a woman who was surprised to find that she (Hornbacher) was married, and practically relieved to learn that there were no kids in the picture:

Apparently I hadn’t quite made my point. Because after 45 minutes of going on about the facts that mental illness is highly treatable, that one can live and live well when one has it, and that my life as a mentally ill person is really quite average, she’d come away with: mentally ill people are so warped that it’s a miracle anyone can stand being married to them, let alone allow them to inflict themselves on a baby.

While it is disconcerting and disappointing that this woman completely missed the point of the lecture, it’s certainly a very clear description of perceptions of the mentally ill.  It also demonstrates how social attitudes continue to plague people with mental illness, even if they themselves might have been working very hard to cope with both their illnesses and their perceptions about their personal illnesses.

Hornbacher also examines how reproductive rights factor into the issue:

When people with uncontrolled mental illness have kids, those kids do feel the effects, and it’s a serious struggle for both parent and child. But unless we want to skate dangerously close to the suggestion that those people should not be “allowed” to have children – a suggestion that leads ultimately to an argument for eugenics – “we” are not in a position to say that they can’t have kids.

I would venture to say that many people start having children without deeply thinking it through, and without being particularly well-prepared. Who allows them to do this? Well, that’s not really the question. We sigh and say, God, there should really be a test. But we’re joking.

Her sentiments are not only very clearly expressed, but also reflected in the experiences of many other women and would-be parents affected by eugenics, or at least eugenicist attitudes.  Who is to determine whether or not someone who is mentally ill, black, mentally retarded, or poor should have kids?  After all, there are plenty of white, upper-class people with no mental illness or retardation who make terrible parents.  Hornbacher also describes her experience growing up with a parents with mental illness, and while she acknowledges that it was sometimes difficult to be a child of a person with mental illness, her father was a great parent, and that what she takes away from the relationship is positive.

Hornbacher ends her piece with her own uncertainty:

I sometimes have this dream where I am holding a thing, and then it floats away, and I get this weird weightless ache in my arms. Then I wake up and listen to the silence. It is the noisy silence of the ghost of the 5-year-old I chose not to raise. Is anyone raising her?

You often hear people with mental illness who have children described as “selfish.” There’s the perception that someone like me would have kids only to serve my own needs. But maybe the decision I made was the selfish one. My arms are empty. And my burden is very light.

I find her final paragraph incredibly moving and disquieting at the same time.  How are people with mental illness “selfish” for having children, while those without illness aren’t?  Hornbacher wasn’t planning to have biological childen; she and her husband were adopting.  If she’s not passing on her genes, is she still a bad parent?  Are parents free of mental illness necessarily better parents?  What does this reflection say about how mentally ill people are treated in a culture where the “other” is marginalized?

For more insight, check out the article, and especially check out the comments.

Repro Rights Conference

I am super excited.  I will be at the 2009 Civil Liberties and Public Policy (CLPP) Reproductive Rights Conference: From Abortion Rights to Social Justice: Building the Movement for Reproductive Freedom at Hampshire College this weekend.  Tonight I’ll be at an abortion speak-out for women and tomorrow I’ll be  at workshops all day.  Topics include: Abortion Access Internationally, Abortion Access in the US, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, transgender and genderqueer issues and allyship, the link between Climate Justice and Reproductive Justice, sex work and feminism, how the Right took power, masculinities, the new eugenics, sex positivity, and a lot more of really interesting and engaging topics.  I’ll be back with more after the conference.

What the new Council on Women and Girls can do to be radical and transformative

The American Prospect has an article up by Courtney Martin, one of the feministing bloggers, called A Radical Vision for the Council on Women and Girls. She mentions several important things worth mentioning.

The council was created to address and support bourgeoisie women and their interests/issues, like afforded quality child care, family leave, and flexible work schedules. Meanwhile, women not pertaining to the upper-middle and upper classes and their needs/interests tend to get ignored. What about women who struggle daily living paycheck to paycheck?

As Martin writes:

We need to shift our priorities, and the White House Council on Women and Children can be the catalyst. There are some long-neglected issues that I’d like to challenge the council to take on, namely domestic sex trafficking, the HIV/AIDS infection rate among black women, and a federally funded, comprehensive sexual-education policy.

This is absolutely true – yes, family leave, affordable quality child care, and workplace flexibility are important issues. But gender/sexuality based violence, comprehensive sex ed, human trafficking/sexual slavery, affordable quality housing, HIV/AIDS and other STDs, should also rise to the forefront. These are legitimate issues that often get overlooked. It’s time to stop otherizing certain issues and thinking that they don’t happen as frequently in America, like child prostitution, violence against the LGBTQ community, etc.

She concludes:

What will make this proposed White House Council truly radical is if it doesn’t just serve the self-interest of the women with a seat at the table but the young women and struggling mothers who have been given the scraps of governmental goodwill for far too long. With these women as a top priority rather than an afterthought, this council could demonstrate effective cooperation among departments and agencies, acknowledge that you can’t look at gender without also considering class and race (and vice versa), and connect with grass-roots groups doing work on the ground, within their own communities. In short, it could be that transformative.

What could make the council truly groundbreaking and transformative is if it addresses the entire citizenship base, not just those at the upper echelons of society, if it acknowledges the existence, voices, concerns, and demands of disenfranchised women who are lower class or of color, if it acknowledges these women and the struggles they face in their daily lives and tries to work on ways to help them or improve their situations. Helping out those who are at the lower rungs of society will ultimately lift society up as a whole.

Happy National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers!

Today is National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. Perfect timing for the Feminists for Life to come tonight and talk about the so-called feminist case against abortion, no?

Katha Pollitt at the Nation brings up several good points:

– Roe v Wade may  be protected in the Supreme Court but state legislatures don’t stop trying to increase obstacles for women trying to get abortions

– There are bills being considered in eleven states to require women seeking abortions to get ultrasounds (As Pollitt wittily notes this is “because apparently women are so stupid they might not realize they’re having an abortion because they’re pregnant”).

–  Women’s health activists at many abortion clinics are retiring and are not easy to replace especially in more conservative areas like places in the Midwest or the South.

– Doctors, nurses and technicians who perform abortions do not make a lot of money  so contrary to anti-choice rhetoric of how abortion is just a money-sucking business, these clinicians don’t profit a lot and can earn more money working elsewhere

– These medical professionals who work in abortion clinics in conservative, anti-choice regions walk through picketers (screaming “murder!!!!”) who potentially get violent on their way to work sometimes. This is not something to look forward to in the morning when you get up for work.

The ignorant comments that people left after the post are upsetting and not worth sharing. They just go to show that despite Roe v Wade being upheld, there are still many people who oppose a woman’s right to abortion and we still have a fight to continue.

“The feminist case against abortion”?

There are fliers hanging around campus promoting “The feminist case against abortion” on Tuesday night as presented by the Feminists for Life. Can you be anti-choice and feminist? I don’t think so. I think that you can personally be against abortion (for religious reasons or other reasons) but you can and should be supportive of other women’s reproductive rights and control over their own bodies, and therefore still be a feminist. You can respect someone else’s views and respect their decisions even if you strongly disagree.

Having reproductive rights and control over one’s body are so central to a woman’s autonomy and critical to her full participation in society. So even if abortion is not something you would personally do, it’s important to have that option available for women who choose to get them and to support those who do follow that route.

The rhetoric around abortion rights also gets problematic. Calling someone who opposes abortion rights “pro-life” implicates that the rest of us who do support abortion rights are anti life in general. On the flip side, being called “anti-choice” doesn’t fly too well with opponents of abortion. Unfortunately, just being in favor of or against abortion rights just isn’t catchy enough.

While I don’t think that you can be against abortion rights and feminist, I believe that you can’t just dismiss organizations like Feminists for Life or individuals who share those views because they can be important allies. Feminists for Life supported VAWA: the Violence Against Women Act. At the same time, for an organization that is supposed to be “pro-woman and pro-life” Feminists for Life has not done much to advocate for mothers to demand affordable and quality child care or more equitable access to health care.

This also raises questions around what exactly a feminist is. Of course feminists come in all shapes, sizes and colors. But do we need a standard definition of and platform for feminism? It’s hard to define feminism and it differs from person to person which is part of its beauty, that it can mean so much for and strike a chord with such a varied audience. However the word feminist has also been thrown around a lot by people who call themselves feminists when they are not (like Sarah Palin or Camille Paglia) which is disconcerting.

What are people’s thoughts?