I just read an article of Naomi Wolf's that I found online at the New York Times a couple of days ago. The title is "Mommy, I Want To Be a Princess," and, I'm not going to lie, I was prepared to hate it. Skimming the article, it seemed like she was defending the girlie-girl princess culture that so many young girls are obsessed with these days (for more on that, check out Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein). Plus, I must be honest, I think part of my preparation to hate this essay was because I was momentarily confusing Naomi Wolf with Katie Roiphe (even I can't keep track of all the feminists I like or dislike all the time!). But still, I have a lot of problems with the princess culture of today, and I was not very interested in reading a defense of that.
However, the article doesn't totally defend princess culture. For one, she is talking more about young girls' fascination with real princesses (such as Kate Middleton and Princess Di) than she is about the obsession with Disney princesses. She talks about how modern-day princesses do do a lot of work, and she praises how these women in particular have brought together the classes of Britain, showing that a princess doesn't have to be snobby and unattainable.
But she does also touch on the Disney princess culture, and that's where she lost me. She says that "they are busy being the heroines of their own lives." Now, there are some Disney princess who just completely rock. Mulan? Yes! She fights in a war, keeps her identity concealed, and saves China. Awesome. And Anastasia kills Rasputin, which we know is really really hard to do. But then she says that Cinderella's glass slipper "fits because she is nice to little creatures." I'm just not buying it. The shoe was made (created, magicked, choose your verb) for her; of course it fits! And what about the princesses that Wolf fails to mention? Let's recap*:
Ariel: her entire plotline centers around her pining for a man she has never spoken to, and she literally gives away her voice in order to win him over (check out this funny video about her)
Snow White: cleans up after everyone and loves it all the time, and is just really, really pretty.
Belle: she's a little more complicated; after all, she reads and stands her own against a scary man (beast), but she could also be seen as being in an abusive relationship in the hopes of making a change (as discussed in this hilarious video).
Sleeping Beauty: Do I even need to say anything? It's in her name.
Jasmine: Also a little complicated. After all, I applaud her desire to get out of the castle walls and experience adventure, but that desire seems to come more out of boredom from a pampered life. After all, she seems pretty content to be back in the castle after she's gone out and found a husband.
**One princess who is a little more interesting is Pocahontas, but she's usually left out of the "Disney Princess" category; whether she doesn't count because she's Native American, or because she's not ever wearing a frilly dress, I'm not sure.
I didn't hate Wolf's article as I expected to. But I still think her defense of princess culture and obsession is a little shallow. After all, little girls aren't often exploring the charitable acts and philanthropy of today's modern princesses. They are looking at women (powerful women, yes) with pretty dresses and fairy-tale weddings, because that is what their TVs and computers are telling them to look at. Even when the princesses are doing good deeds and real work, if our media is blinding young girls with shiny dresses, money and "perfect" weddings, what are they going to see and admire at the end of the day?
*I would like to say that while I understand all the problems with many of the Disney princesses and their stories, I still love most of the movies. What can I say? I grew up with red hair, and when I went swimming I would go underwater to try to make my hair flow around my head like Ariel's did. Those movies are a part of my childhood, and I just can't turn my back on them completely.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Her Obligation, His Choice: Raising the Kids
"It doesn't make sense that only women are saying 'How can I combine career and family?'"
I heard Gloria Steinem say this in an interview today. First of all, I would love for her to be the next President. Just saying. She's awesome.
But anyway, this is such a great statement. Today we still don't think of men as responsible for childcare. Yes, there are more men choosing to stay home with the kids, but pay attention to the key word: choosing. For many women, staying home is not a choice. It's a practicality and an assumption; daycare is too expensive, so someone has to stay home, and many families assume that someone will be the mother.
Recently, having a conversation with a soon-to-married friend of mine, he was joking around about his future wife staying home with the kids. I asked him, "Well why don't you take the time off and stay with the kids?" He said "Done! That would be awesome!" He made it sound like a vacation, something exciting. And yes, many people love, love, love, staying home to raise the kids, and I'm not knocking it, but no one who has done it would say it is easy. It is difficult, exhausting, all-day unpaid work. And while men may see this (before they do it) as a vacation from work, a year off, a choice they can make or not, too many women deal with it as work, as an obligation, as a choice they didn't get to make.
My mom often talks about what it was like for her when she and my dad were still married. He helped with us a lot; she often had friends mention how impressed they were with his involvement. But he always expected to be thanked. This shows that he fell into the same trap of thinking that raising the kids was just women's work. She was expected to do it; if he deigned to do it, he should be rewarded. Her obligation, his choice.
I don't mean to say that this makes my dad a bad father or anything like that. This is just a personal example of how these cultural assumptions really affect our personal lives. We have to stop seeing stay-at-home dads as these wonderful, self-sacrificing people who are giving up on a (masculine) career to be a (feminine) stay-at-home parent. Or rather, we should start seeing all stay-at-home moms as the wonderful, self-sacrificing people who are giving up on a career to do very real work at home with their children. All stay-at-home parents are sacrificing a portion of their lives for their children, and they all deserve equal credit.
Penises don't make men better parents; they shouldn't get them more praise either.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The. Most. Important. Day: "It's My Day!" Part Two
In August, I wrote a post about my problems with the cultural traditions surrounding the modern wedding, and the traditions of it being "the bride's day" and all that. I discussed the problem with all the focus on one person (the bride) instead of on the partnership of two people.
Last night, I had a bit of a revelation about this. Now, I don't remember exactly how my train of thought got there; I was out at the bar with some friends, one of whom is engaged and was talking about the planning of his wedding. I was thinking, as I so often do, about my plan to skip the whole wedding tradition and just go to city hall with whomever I choose to marry, and throw a big party later for all of our friends. And a thought crossed through my mind (I admit, I had been drinking wine, so the exact thought escapes me) that went something like this: Do I really want the most important day of my life to happen in city hall with just a few witnesses?
That's when I got it. The attitude of "It's My Day," the thinking of a woman needing one day to feel like a princess, to feel like the most important woman in the room, all stems back to the idea that for women, your wedding is supposed to be The. Most. Important. Day. Of. Your. Life. This idea is ingrained into us girls and women by our culture and the people around us.
Well, pardon me, but fuck that! I have had, and will have, a lot of important days in my life. Graduating college? Yeah. Getting promoted from intern to managing editor? Awesome! Night I met my current boyfriend? Pretty good, too.
Of course, a lot of this stems back to a time when a wedding was the most important day of a woman's life, because it meant financial security and status. And while we all love to say we've moved on, these assumptions and beliefs still follow us around. How many movies have we seen where the woman who is "always a bridesmaid but never a bride" is sad and lonely? She may have a great job, she may have great friends and a social life, she may be (probably is) super hot (Hollywood-standards hot, of course) but she is not married, so she must be incomplete and inferior. (This is one thing I liked in the movie Bridesmaids; sure, Annie's lack of a relationship is part of her sadness, but most of it stems from her failings in her career; she's not trying to get married, she's just trying to get her life together.)
And, again, the focus on it being the most important day for a woman, and for a relationship, takes the focus away from the partnership. Recently, my boyfriend pointed out that he thinks the way wedding anniversaries are counted is weird. "Why do they start over at the wedding? Does the relationship before the wedding, the months and years together before that one day, not count anymore?" It's an interesting thought. I do get the wedding anniversary thing; it's the date that you officially started a life together, and made that commitment to stay together and move forward as a pair. But it's interesting to think about, especially when so many relationships blur those lines these days. Some people talk about getting married way before they are officially engaged. Some live together for years before walking down the aisle. Some have children before getting married. The traditional way of counting the "years together" may not fit many relationships anymore. And the wedding may or may not be, or feel like, the most important milestone anymore. I can certainly imagine that after living with someone for months or years, the wedding/marriage may feel more like tying up loose ends and bringing everything together than embarking on a huge new step.
So with all this cultural change and blurring of the lines toward commitment, why is there still such a focus on the bride's day as the biggest day of her life? Is it because we haven't caught up to the changes in women's lives? Is it because the larger culture refuses to accept that some women have more important plans and milestones in their lives than marriage?
What do you think?
Last night, I had a bit of a revelation about this. Now, I don't remember exactly how my train of thought got there; I was out at the bar with some friends, one of whom is engaged and was talking about the planning of his wedding. I was thinking, as I so often do, about my plan to skip the whole wedding tradition and just go to city hall with whomever I choose to marry, and throw a big party later for all of our friends. And a thought crossed through my mind (I admit, I had been drinking wine, so the exact thought escapes me) that went something like this: Do I really want the most important day of my life to happen in city hall with just a few witnesses?
That's when I got it. The attitude of "It's My Day," the thinking of a woman needing one day to feel like a princess, to feel like the most important woman in the room, all stems back to the idea that for women, your wedding is supposed to be The. Most. Important. Day. Of. Your. Life. This idea is ingrained into us girls and women by our culture and the people around us.
Well, pardon me, but fuck that! I have had, and will have, a lot of important days in my life. Graduating college? Yeah. Getting promoted from intern to managing editor? Awesome! Night I met my current boyfriend? Pretty good, too.
Of course, a lot of this stems back to a time when a wedding was the most important day of a woman's life, because it meant financial security and status. And while we all love to say we've moved on, these assumptions and beliefs still follow us around. How many movies have we seen where the woman who is "always a bridesmaid but never a bride" is sad and lonely? She may have a great job, she may have great friends and a social life, she may be (probably is) super hot (Hollywood-standards hot, of course) but she is not married, so she must be incomplete and inferior. (This is one thing I liked in the movie Bridesmaids; sure, Annie's lack of a relationship is part of her sadness, but most of it stems from her failings in her career; she's not trying to get married, she's just trying to get her life together.)
And, again, the focus on it being the most important day for a woman, and for a relationship, takes the focus away from the partnership. Recently, my boyfriend pointed out that he thinks the way wedding anniversaries are counted is weird. "Why do they start over at the wedding? Does the relationship before the wedding, the months and years together before that one day, not count anymore?" It's an interesting thought. I do get the wedding anniversary thing; it's the date that you officially started a life together, and made that commitment to stay together and move forward as a pair. But it's interesting to think about, especially when so many relationships blur those lines these days. Some people talk about getting married way before they are officially engaged. Some live together for years before walking down the aisle. Some have children before getting married. The traditional way of counting the "years together" may not fit many relationships anymore. And the wedding may or may not be, or feel like, the most important milestone anymore. I can certainly imagine that after living with someone for months or years, the wedding/marriage may feel more like tying up loose ends and bringing everything together than embarking on a huge new step.
So with all this cultural change and blurring of the lines toward commitment, why is there still such a focus on the bride's day as the biggest day of her life? Is it because we haven't caught up to the changes in women's lives? Is it because the larger culture refuses to accept that some women have more important plans and milestones in their lives than marriage?
What do you think?
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Practice Makes...Pathetic?
"I was shaking my head no when I pulled the vibrator from the envelope...It wasn't just the vibrator and thinking of my mother masturbating that upset me, but also that my mother's boyfriend had stopped sleeping with her and that no amount of love I gave her could equal what was in my hand." Lisa Glatt, A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That, p. 120.
First of all, I would like to say that I am currently reading A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That and loving it. My post, which you will soon find out if you haven't assumed already is dealing with my problems with the quote above, has nothing to do with my feelings on the book. I think it's great; I just had such a problem with the sentences above that I had to stop and write about it.
When I read the section quoted above, I stopped cold, and I was a little angry. Why does the author (or character, perhaps) assume that a woman ordering a vibrator is lonely and not getting sex? It makes me sad that our culture has painted masturbation as something that only lonely people do.
Masturbation is not a sad, lonely, pathetic substitute; it's not the opposite of a sex life. Masturbation is a healthy part of a sex life. It's a supplement. Your partner is not in the mood but you are? Masturbate. Partner out of town? Masturbate. Partner not in the mood yet but wants to please you? Masturbate and let them watch. And in the same way, owning a vibrator/dildo does not mean that said owner is not getting any sex. Vibrators can be used for solo or partner time.
Now, I understand that the author could be using the vibrator scene to paint a larger picture in her novel. I won't ruin anything (I can't spoil too much, I'm not finished with the book yet) but the woman/mother who ordered the vibrator is dealing with cancer and cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation. So maybe the vibrator is supposed to symbolize her isolation from other (healthy) people, whether self-imposed or not, and her daughter's inability to understand what she's going through. I get it, and I'm not saying the author should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that it's interesting (and sad, and sex-negative, and woman-negative) that we are supposed to see this vibrator, this wonderful tool for a woman's pleasure without needing a partner, and see it as something sad, lonely, something heartbreaking. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her? I think maybe so...
I remember the scene in Parenthood when Steve Martin accidentally finds his sister's vibrator, his divorced, single, lonely sister, and bursts out laughing while she is mortified. No one else in the film mentions sex toys or masturbation aids. Why? Because people (according to our culture) in relationships don't need to masturbate. If you're in a relationship you must be getting ALL the sex you need/want exactly when you need/want it.
This is not reality. And it truly can cause real-life problems. I was amazed the first time my boyfriend turned me down for sex. I couldn't believe that he, a male human, didn't want sex every time it was offered. And I was hurt when he suggested I masturbate (which I had never done) because I thought it meant that I was pathetic and lonely. It's just not true. Most women who masturbate have more orgasms when they do have partner sex. Why?
Practice makes perfect.
I just wish our culture could accept that.
First of all, I would like to say that I am currently reading A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That and loving it. My post, which you will soon find out if you haven't assumed already is dealing with my problems with the quote above, has nothing to do with my feelings on the book. I think it's great; I just had such a problem with the sentences above that I had to stop and write about it.
When I read the section quoted above, I stopped cold, and I was a little angry. Why does the author (or character, perhaps) assume that a woman ordering a vibrator is lonely and not getting sex? It makes me sad that our culture has painted masturbation as something that only lonely people do.
Masturbation is not a sad, lonely, pathetic substitute; it's not the opposite of a sex life. Masturbation is a healthy part of a sex life. It's a supplement. Your partner is not in the mood but you are? Masturbate. Partner out of town? Masturbate. Partner not in the mood yet but wants to please you? Masturbate and let them watch. And in the same way, owning a vibrator/dildo does not mean that said owner is not getting any sex. Vibrators can be used for solo or partner time.
Now, I understand that the author could be using the vibrator scene to paint a larger picture in her novel. I won't ruin anything (I can't spoil too much, I'm not finished with the book yet) but the woman/mother who ordered the vibrator is dealing with cancer and cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation. So maybe the vibrator is supposed to symbolize her isolation from other (healthy) people, whether self-imposed or not, and her daughter's inability to understand what she's going through. I get it, and I'm not saying the author should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that it's interesting (and sad, and sex-negative, and woman-negative) that we are supposed to see this vibrator, this wonderful tool for a woman's pleasure without needing a partner, and see it as something sad, lonely, something heartbreaking. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her? I think maybe so...
I remember the scene in Parenthood when Steve Martin accidentally finds his sister's vibrator, his divorced, single, lonely sister, and bursts out laughing while she is mortified. No one else in the film mentions sex toys or masturbation aids. Why? Because people (according to our culture) in relationships don't need to masturbate. If you're in a relationship you must be getting ALL the sex you need/want exactly when you need/want it.
This is not reality. And it truly can cause real-life problems. I was amazed the first time my boyfriend turned me down for sex. I couldn't believe that he, a male human, didn't want sex every time it was offered. And I was hurt when he suggested I masturbate (which I had never done) because I thought it meant that I was pathetic and lonely. It's just not true. Most women who masturbate have more orgasms when they do have partner sex. Why?
Practice makes perfect.
I just wish our culture could accept that.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
A**hole Award: Boycott American Women
I've decided to create the first Feminism: Not a Naughty Word Award: The A**hole Award. Bitch magazine has their "Douchebag Decree" on their blogs, and I've decided to have my own. I don't know how often I will give out this award (I certainly could have last week when Phil Bryant referred to Initiative 26 opponents as Nazis), but I have to give it out today.
Last night, I got an email that a new person had commented on my blog. His comment provided a link to his blog, as well as a link to his book (do pay attention to the only 2 comments beneath the book). Now, the comment no longer appears on the blog, so maybe he decided to delete it after posting, I'm not sure. But you should really check out these links, because it's amazing to me that this exists. His blog, and his book, are called Boycott American Women. Here are a few gems:
Have you American women ever heard of the word "misandry"? It is the exact opposite of misoginy. It means hatred of men. And feminism and misandry are the same thing...So, get used to living alone with your 10 cats, or else become a lesbian. Those are your two options, American women! (Dec. 31, 2010)
American women have confused being strong and independent with what they want (selfishness), what they want to hear (arrogance). Ever disagree with an American woman, they can't take it and they tell you it's negative or being critical or opinionated, even if you show them proof they are wrong. (Dec. 27, 2010)
There are some good American women, but as a group, they pose a higher risk of future divorce compared to more traditional foreign women. This is one of the reasons that a growing number of well-off American men are marrying foreign brides...One of the problems here is that many young American women have become just like Brittany Spears - materialistic and emotionally unstable. Thus, they are not marriage-material and thus, easily discarded. (Nov. 17, 2011)
The sickness of feminism has made American women ugly. Ugliness is the mark of feminism, the scar left on women unlucky enough to be its victim. How can a women ever be beautiful after this infection? By deciding to be a women again and sever [serve, I'm pretty sure, is the intended word] her man as a woman should. Some women have been tricked into seeing themselves as beautiful because of feminism, but this is a lie. (Nov. 15, 2011)
Now, I could comment on the grammatical and spelling problems that abound on this blog (and probably in the book), but really, wouldn't that just be petty of me? Well, who cares, because this blog is completely petty. It's full of the rantings of men (it looks like any angry anti-feminist can post here) who don't want to lose their privileges. It's written by men who truly believe that women should "serve" their men (or "sever", as the author typed it). It's written by men who think that women asking for what they want are being selfish, but men asking for what they want (such as, I don't know, submissive women) are entitled and following the natural order.
This blog discusses the fact that women ruin the lives of men, and one way that they do that is with "False rape accusations (it has been proven that up to 80 percent of rape accusations are FALSE)." Now, I have heard different figures for the percentage of false rape accusations, so I tried to google it quickly. Wikipedia (not at all the best source, I know, but the fastest one I could find that wasn't just another blog ranting about false rape accusations) says, "Detailed investigations using differing samples and methodologies have found widely differing results ranging from as high as 41% to as low as 1.5%. As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown." So even within a huge range of possibility, the number is NOWHERE close to 80%. So where did this guy get his statistics? Who knows! He probably made it up.
These men want 1950s housewives. They want women to cook, clean, lie down for sex when told, and to smile while doing it all. In other words, these men don't want their wives to think or speak, or they certainly don't want their wives to challenge them to think. And of course, a huge problem here is that the only role in which these men discuss women is that of wife/girlfriend. These men don't respect women as individuals, I doubt they would call any women "friends" or "confidants." They're looking for baby-making, house-cleaning vessels.
I almost didn't write about this blog because it is SO ridiculous and the authors are clearly so ignorant, but I was so shocked that something like this could exist today that I had to share it.
Last night, I got an email that a new person had commented on my blog. His comment provided a link to his blog, as well as a link to his book (do pay attention to the only 2 comments beneath the book). Now, the comment no longer appears on the blog, so maybe he decided to delete it after posting, I'm not sure. But you should really check out these links, because it's amazing to me that this exists. His blog, and his book, are called Boycott American Women. Here are a few gems:
Have you American women ever heard of the word "misandry"? It is the exact opposite of misoginy. It means hatred of men. And feminism and misandry are the same thing...So, get used to living alone with your 10 cats, or else become a lesbian. Those are your two options, American women! (Dec. 31, 2010)
American women have confused being strong and independent with what they want (selfishness), what they want to hear (arrogance). Ever disagree with an American woman, they can't take it and they tell you it's negative or being critical or opinionated, even if you show them proof they are wrong. (Dec. 27, 2010)
There are some good American women, but as a group, they pose a higher risk of future divorce compared to more traditional foreign women. This is one of the reasons that a growing number of well-off American men are marrying foreign brides...One of the problems here is that many young American women have become just like Brittany Spears - materialistic and emotionally unstable. Thus, they are not marriage-material and thus, easily discarded. (Nov. 17, 2011)
The sickness of feminism has made American women ugly. Ugliness is the mark of feminism, the scar left on women unlucky enough to be its victim. How can a women ever be beautiful after this infection? By deciding to be a women again and sever [serve, I'm pretty sure, is the intended word] her man as a woman should. Some women have been tricked into seeing themselves as beautiful because of feminism, but this is a lie. (Nov. 15, 2011)
Now, I could comment on the grammatical and spelling problems that abound on this blog (and probably in the book), but really, wouldn't that just be petty of me? Well, who cares, because this blog is completely petty. It's full of the rantings of men (it looks like any angry anti-feminist can post here) who don't want to lose their privileges. It's written by men who truly believe that women should "serve" their men (or "sever", as the author typed it). It's written by men who think that women asking for what they want are being selfish, but men asking for what they want (such as, I don't know, submissive women) are entitled and following the natural order.
This blog discusses the fact that women ruin the lives of men, and one way that they do that is with "False rape accusations (it has been proven that up to 80 percent of rape accusations are FALSE)." Now, I have heard different figures for the percentage of false rape accusations, so I tried to google it quickly. Wikipedia (not at all the best source, I know, but the fastest one I could find that wasn't just another blog ranting about false rape accusations) says, "Detailed investigations using differing samples and methodologies have found widely differing results ranging from as high as 41% to as low as 1.5%. As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown." So even within a huge range of possibility, the number is NOWHERE close to 80%. So where did this guy get his statistics? Who knows! He probably made it up.
These men want 1950s housewives. They want women to cook, clean, lie down for sex when told, and to smile while doing it all. In other words, these men don't want their wives to think or speak, or they certainly don't want their wives to challenge them to think. And of course, a huge problem here is that the only role in which these men discuss women is that of wife/girlfriend. These men don't respect women as individuals, I doubt they would call any women "friends" or "confidants." They're looking for baby-making, house-cleaning vessels.
I almost didn't write about this blog because it is SO ridiculous and the authors are clearly so ignorant, but I was so shocked that something like this could exist today that I had to share it.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Paternalistic Pharmacists (and Politics)
In keeping with the theme of personhood, abortion, reproductive rights and so on, I want to discuss something I discovered awhile back when I was reading Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth but hadn't found the time to write about.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Why Not Feminist?
I have discovered in recent years that most women (and men) these days don't like to call themselves feminists. This doesn't make much sense to me, especially when someone tells me they do believe in gender equality, equal pay for equal work, marriages as partnerships, and the many other ideas that feminism supports. What's the problem with the word?
I have a couple of ideas. First of all, we all know the feminist or "Femi-Nazi" stereotype: bra-burning, man-hating, military-boot-wearing, loud-mouthed butch feminist. No one wants to be thought of that way. I get it. But I think (hope) most of us also know that feminists aren't actually like that.
Also, a girl in a class of mine suggested that the word itself was the problem. Racists are people who think their race is better than others. Sexists think that their sex is better than others. So don't feminists think that women are better than men? We don't; of course not. Feminism is a movement that involves men and women, because honestly, equal treatment of women will improve the lives of women and men.
Maybe it's because the feminist movement is less visible these days. This could be changing, though, with the recent SlutWalks and all the publicity they've gotten, along with Occupy Wall Street and other politically active campaigning. (I would certainly call Mississippi's successful No on 26 campaign a feminist one, though everyone involved might not agree.) But, still, we have ideas of 1970s feminism as loud, in-your-face and everywhere (whether or not this is accurate; I wasn't around so I don't know). So maybe women today don't identify as feminist because they don't see themselves as involved in a larger movement. I know that it took me a couple of university classes, a large amount of reading and a whole lot of online searching to find the feminist community alive and well.
So, you tell me: Why do you or do you not identify as a feminist? What do you see as the defining characteristics of a feminist? And is it important, if you want to support equality of all people, that you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?
I have a couple of ideas. First of all, we all know the feminist or "Femi-Nazi" stereotype: bra-burning, man-hating, military-boot-wearing, loud-mouthed butch feminist. No one wants to be thought of that way. I get it. But I think (hope) most of us also know that feminists aren't actually like that.
Also, a girl in a class of mine suggested that the word itself was the problem. Racists are people who think their race is better than others. Sexists think that their sex is better than others. So don't feminists think that women are better than men? We don't; of course not. Feminism is a movement that involves men and women, because honestly, equal treatment of women will improve the lives of women and men.
Maybe it's because the feminist movement is less visible these days. This could be changing, though, with the recent SlutWalks and all the publicity they've gotten, along with Occupy Wall Street and other politically active campaigning. (I would certainly call Mississippi's successful No on 26 campaign a feminist one, though everyone involved might not agree.) But, still, we have ideas of 1970s feminism as loud, in-your-face and everywhere (whether or not this is accurate; I wasn't around so I don't know). So maybe women today don't identify as feminist because they don't see themselves as involved in a larger movement. I know that it took me a couple of university classes, a large amount of reading and a whole lot of online searching to find the feminist community alive and well.
So, you tell me: Why do you or do you not identify as a feminist? What do you see as the defining characteristics of a feminist? And is it important, if you want to support equality of all people, that you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Personhood: Why MS's Victory is Important
First of all: Whooooooo!!!!! We did it!!!! I don't know if I've ever woken up singing and dancing, but I did today.
Ok. So why is this a big deal? We know that personhood initiatives are in the works in other states, and less than twelve hours after our victory, we know that personhood supporters are going to try to work this through our legislature (which is now even more Republican and anti-woman [not that Republican and anti-woman are synonymous, but in today's political climate, they are more than they aren't]). So how much of a victory is this?
A HUGE ONE! After failing twice in Colorado, Personhood USA handpicked Mississippi as the conservative and uneducated state that might just pass this initiative without taking the time to learn about it, or just by having strong anti-abortion feelings. They thought that we would just let them walk all over us, and we proved them absolutely wrong. We will not be condescended to as the dumb scum of the US in overalls and no shoes. We have shoes, we have brains, and we used them to get the word out about how dangerous Initiative 26 really was. As this article in the Huffington Post said,
The forces who brought Personhood before the public insulted the intellectual and cultural sensibilities of thousands of Mississippians. They assumed Mississippi would be a cake walk. They provided grandma's 1970's abortion language that didn't speak to many younger, yet conservative, Mississippians. They were sloppy in their organizing and flippant about their opposition; condescending. Their official Personhood website looks like my child's 4th grade class designed it.
Don't treat us like idiots, because we're not. We care, and we fought against this amendment in one of the most conservative states in the nation. If we can do it, other states can. Yes, the fight is just beginning, but our victory is huge (even the White House has commented on it), and I'm gonna take a day to celebrate and dance around with a song in my head because I am proud to be a Mississippian today, and tomorrow I can begin to fight for these rights in the rest of the country (as well as continuing the fight here). I'll end this post with my favorite quote from the article mentioned above:
There's a lesson here about showing up in Mississippi without your game face on.
Ok. So why is this a big deal? We know that personhood initiatives are in the works in other states, and less than twelve hours after our victory, we know that personhood supporters are going to try to work this through our legislature (which is now even more Republican and anti-woman [not that Republican and anti-woman are synonymous, but in today's political climate, they are more than they aren't]). So how much of a victory is this?
A HUGE ONE! After failing twice in Colorado, Personhood USA handpicked Mississippi as the conservative and uneducated state that might just pass this initiative without taking the time to learn about it, or just by having strong anti-abortion feelings. They thought that we would just let them walk all over us, and we proved them absolutely wrong. We will not be condescended to as the dumb scum of the US in overalls and no shoes. We have shoes, we have brains, and we used them to get the word out about how dangerous Initiative 26 really was. As this article in the Huffington Post said,
The forces who brought Personhood before the public insulted the intellectual and cultural sensibilities of thousands of Mississippians. They assumed Mississippi would be a cake walk. They provided grandma's 1970's abortion language that didn't speak to many younger, yet conservative, Mississippians. They were sloppy in their organizing and flippant about their opposition; condescending. Their official Personhood website looks like my child's 4th grade class designed it.
Don't treat us like idiots, because we're not. We care, and we fought against this amendment in one of the most conservative states in the nation. If we can do it, other states can. Yes, the fight is just beginning, but our victory is huge (even the White House has commented on it), and I'm gonna take a day to celebrate and dance around with a song in my head because I am proud to be a Mississippian today, and tomorrow I can begin to fight for these rights in the rest of the country (as well as continuing the fight here). I'll end this post with my favorite quote from the article mentioned above:
There's a lesson here about showing up in Mississippi without your game face on.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Personhood: Not Just in "Backwards" Mississippi
I'm so excited that the personhood amendment on the Mississippi ballot today is getting so much national attention; however, along with that attention has been a good ol' helping of Southern- and Mississippi-hating by people who believe all the stereotypes about the South.
On Rachel Maddow's blog, a recent article about personhood was followed by several comments from readers, including "Secede already!" Really? A bad initiative on the ballot in Mississippi is equivalent to terrible decisions made over a hundred years ago over slavery? Let's recap:
Mississippi is not the first state to vote on proposed personhood amendments. Colorado has voted on them twice, and voted them down twice.
Mississippians are not responsible for this initiative appearing on the ballot. Personhood USA is the group behind these initiatives in Colorado and Mississippi. Personhood USA is trying to push a national agenda against abortion, and they're doing it state by state. They are currently trying to get similar initiatives on the ballot in at least six other states, and have petitions to do the same in all fifty states. This well-funded, extremist group is working extremely hard to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they see these personhood measures as the best way to do it.
You may say, this is all true BUT didn't Mississippians have to sign a petition to get this on the ballot in the first place? True. Now, I never saw the petition, but from what I've heard, the petition basically said "Do you think abortion should be illegal?" It did not say "Do you think the State Constitution should be amended to to make every single fertilized egg a person?" It did not say, "Do you think birth control, IVF, stem cell research, and safe, medical treatment for dangerous pregnancies should be endangered?" It was a manipulation of Mississippi voters. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same way that the measures were put on the Colorado ballot, or the way that they are attempting to get them on others.
Even today, when we go to the polls, we are simply asked if a fertilized egg should now be defined as a person; there is no mention of the State Constitution being amended. Voters who have not been able to follow the local and national coverage will not be fully informed of what they are voting on.
So when news followers from other states make comments about how backwards Mississippians are and how we deserve everything we get because we are so dumb, ill-educated and extremely conservative, let's remind them that their states could soon be facing this same question on their ballot. Let's remind them that Personhood USA is a national group, not a Mississippi one, and that personhood initiatives are a national problem, not just a Mississippi problem.
And most importantly, let's go out today and VOTE NO on 26, and prove that Personhood USA can't just assume that because we are a traditionally conservative state that we will allow our voters to be manipulated by a group with our worst interests at heart.
On Rachel Maddow's blog, a recent article about personhood was followed by several comments from readers, including "Secede already!" Really? A bad initiative on the ballot in Mississippi is equivalent to terrible decisions made over a hundred years ago over slavery? Let's recap:
Mississippi is not the first state to vote on proposed personhood amendments. Colorado has voted on them twice, and voted them down twice.
Mississippians are not responsible for this initiative appearing on the ballot. Personhood USA is the group behind these initiatives in Colorado and Mississippi. Personhood USA is trying to push a national agenda against abortion, and they're doing it state by state. They are currently trying to get similar initiatives on the ballot in at least six other states, and have petitions to do the same in all fifty states. This well-funded, extremist group is working extremely hard to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they see these personhood measures as the best way to do it.
You may say, this is all true BUT didn't Mississippians have to sign a petition to get this on the ballot in the first place? True. Now, I never saw the petition, but from what I've heard, the petition basically said "Do you think abortion should be illegal?" It did not say "Do you think the State Constitution should be amended to to make every single fertilized egg a person?" It did not say, "Do you think birth control, IVF, stem cell research, and safe, medical treatment for dangerous pregnancies should be endangered?" It was a manipulation of Mississippi voters. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same way that the measures were put on the Colorado ballot, or the way that they are attempting to get them on others.
Even today, when we go to the polls, we are simply asked if a fertilized egg should now be defined as a person; there is no mention of the State Constitution being amended. Voters who have not been able to follow the local and national coverage will not be fully informed of what they are voting on.
So when news followers from other states make comments about how backwards Mississippians are and how we deserve everything we get because we are so dumb, ill-educated and extremely conservative, let's remind them that their states could soon be facing this same question on their ballot. Let's remind them that Personhood USA is a national group, not a Mississippi one, and that personhood initiatives are a national problem, not just a Mississippi problem.
And most importantly, let's go out today and VOTE NO on 26, and prove that Personhood USA can't just assume that because we are a traditionally conservative state that we will allow our voters to be manipulated by a group with our worst interests at heart.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Abortion, Adoption, and the Pregnancy in the Middle That No One's Talking About
Last night I attended the forum on Initiative 26 at the Ole Miss Law School. The panelists and many commenters brought up countless problems with the initiative: with the language, with the intent vs. the potential interpretation, and with the unintended consequences. And of course, there were many commenters from the Yes side who voiced their opinions. I didn't speak up at the forum because most of the time I was so flushed, angry and appalled that I couldn't have strung together a coherent sentence. I also didn't respond because most of the commenters from the No side who did respond voiced my opinions along with their own. But there's one response I wish I had made, and so even though the man I'm responding to will most likely never read this, I'm going to post my response here.
The issue of forcing rape victims to continue a pregnancy to term when they have been impregnated by their rapist came up, as it often does in these debates. More than one women spoke about how demeaning rape is, and how mentally, physically, and emotionally terrible it would be to carry a conceived-in-rape pregnancy. Then a local pastor spoke up. He was polite, and I think he truly believed what he was saying, but he was very naive. He said that he is an adoptive father, and that he knows many people in his congregation who, if a woman came to them and said, "I've been raped and I would like you to adopt my baby," they would be more than happy to adopt that child. I was annoyed by how easy he made the adoption process seem when we know it is not at all easy. And a couple of people responded to him. Cristen Hemmins, a panelist at the forum and a local activist for No on 26, pointed out the vast number of children in our country right now who are in need of adoption; why aren't these "good Christians" offering to adopt these children? Elizabeth Feder Hosey, the panel's organizer and the founder of a new student organization for reproductive justice, also spoke up, saying that "as a recently pregnant woman," she felt that no one who has not been pregnant should be able to tell women that they have to carry a pregnancy to term. Both of these responses were perfect, and should be enough. But in case they are not, I have another one.
We still have a wage gap in this country. Women make less than men when in the same jobs. And women who are mothers make less than women who are not. Women do not get paid maternity leave in this country. Most women who have babies have to use up their vacation time, time that should be spent on rest and relaxation, for their first weeks as sleep-deprived, emotionally and physically exhausted mothers. Other women use their sick leave, as if pregnancy were a disease. My mother, one of the hardest working women I know, someone who was both a great parent and is great at her job, has almost never taken a vacation from work. Now, I can't speak for the years before my sisters and I were born, but I can not recall her having taken a legitimate vacation from work ever when I was growing up. Why? Because she had to use her vacation time, as well as her sick leave, for her children. She took twelve weeks off when my older sister was born. Those twelve weeks were made up of accumulated vacation time that she had never taken for herself. When I was born, she took off twelve weeks from more accumulated vacation time. By the time my younger sister was born, she took off what little vacation time she had left, and the rest was unpaid sick/maternity leave. When we were growing up, she used her sick days, her personal days, her vacation days for the days when she needed to take us to the doctor, to stay home with us, to chaperone field trips. She took a huge pay cut to change jobs so that her job could accommodate these missed days for children.
So when people (and yes, they are usually men) say that women should carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, I ask them to think not just of the already living children in need of adoption. I ask them not to think only of the physical and emotional difficulties of living while pregnant. I ask them to also think of the financial strains you are putting on the woman. Just because a woman knows that at the end of this pregnancy she will pass the child along to someone else, doesn't change the fact that she will have to miss work for doctors' visits. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take days off because sometimes she will be so sick and feel so terrible that she simply cannot make it to work. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take unpaid time off from work to give birth. It doesn't change the fact that in order to keep making money, she will most likely have to work right up until the point she goes into labor (which, hopefully, won't occur at work, but very well could).
And in my opinion, the fact that she doesn't want this pregnancy, and the fact that she won't be raising a child at the end of this difficult nine months doesn't make this process easier on her. It makes it much, much more difficult.
When Initiative 26 supporters ask women to carry these pregnancies and to choose adoption, they don't think about the pregnancy. They don't think about the physical, emotional, and financial commitments the women are making. Because, of course, they aren't thinking about the women at all. But let's talk about the women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. And while we're at it, let's talk about the other women we aren't taking care of: the women who want their babies, the women who are working round the clock during the last months of pregnancy to make up for the unpaid time they are facing, the women who are running themselves ragged to be both parents and workers.
Before we force more women to work and live while pregnant, let's take care of the women who are choosing to work and live while pregnant, and let's give them some support.
The issue of forcing rape victims to continue a pregnancy to term when they have been impregnated by their rapist came up, as it often does in these debates. More than one women spoke about how demeaning rape is, and how mentally, physically, and emotionally terrible it would be to carry a conceived-in-rape pregnancy. Then a local pastor spoke up. He was polite, and I think he truly believed what he was saying, but he was very naive. He said that he is an adoptive father, and that he knows many people in his congregation who, if a woman came to them and said, "I've been raped and I would like you to adopt my baby," they would be more than happy to adopt that child. I was annoyed by how easy he made the adoption process seem when we know it is not at all easy. And a couple of people responded to him. Cristen Hemmins, a panelist at the forum and a local activist for No on 26, pointed out the vast number of children in our country right now who are in need of adoption; why aren't these "good Christians" offering to adopt these children? Elizabeth Feder Hosey, the panel's organizer and the founder of a new student organization for reproductive justice, also spoke up, saying that "as a recently pregnant woman," she felt that no one who has not been pregnant should be able to tell women that they have to carry a pregnancy to term. Both of these responses were perfect, and should be enough. But in case they are not, I have another one.
We still have a wage gap in this country. Women make less than men when in the same jobs. And women who are mothers make less than women who are not. Women do not get paid maternity leave in this country. Most women who have babies have to use up their vacation time, time that should be spent on rest and relaxation, for their first weeks as sleep-deprived, emotionally and physically exhausted mothers. Other women use their sick leave, as if pregnancy were a disease. My mother, one of the hardest working women I know, someone who was both a great parent and is great at her job, has almost never taken a vacation from work. Now, I can't speak for the years before my sisters and I were born, but I can not recall her having taken a legitimate vacation from work ever when I was growing up. Why? Because she had to use her vacation time, as well as her sick leave, for her children. She took twelve weeks off when my older sister was born. Those twelve weeks were made up of accumulated vacation time that she had never taken for herself. When I was born, she took off twelve weeks from more accumulated vacation time. By the time my younger sister was born, she took off what little vacation time she had left, and the rest was unpaid sick/maternity leave. When we were growing up, she used her sick days, her personal days, her vacation days for the days when she needed to take us to the doctor, to stay home with us, to chaperone field trips. She took a huge pay cut to change jobs so that her job could accommodate these missed days for children.
So when people (and yes, they are usually men) say that women should carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, I ask them to think not just of the already living children in need of adoption. I ask them not to think only of the physical and emotional difficulties of living while pregnant. I ask them to also think of the financial strains you are putting on the woman. Just because a woman knows that at the end of this pregnancy she will pass the child along to someone else, doesn't change the fact that she will have to miss work for doctors' visits. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take days off because sometimes she will be so sick and feel so terrible that she simply cannot make it to work. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take unpaid time off from work to give birth. It doesn't change the fact that in order to keep making money, she will most likely have to work right up until the point she goes into labor (which, hopefully, won't occur at work, but very well could).
And in my opinion, the fact that she doesn't want this pregnancy, and the fact that she won't be raising a child at the end of this difficult nine months doesn't make this process easier on her. It makes it much, much more difficult.
When Initiative 26 supporters ask women to carry these pregnancies and to choose adoption, they don't think about the pregnancy. They don't think about the physical, emotional, and financial commitments the women are making. Because, of course, they aren't thinking about the women at all. But let's talk about the women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. And while we're at it, let's talk about the other women we aren't taking care of: the women who want their babies, the women who are working round the clock during the last months of pregnancy to make up for the unpaid time they are facing, the women who are running themselves ragged to be both parents and workers.
Before we force more women to work and live while pregnant, let's take care of the women who are choosing to work and live while pregnant, and let's give them some support.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Pro-26's Illogical (and Disturbing) Claims
Recently, I noticed a comment on the Yes on 26 Campaign's Facebook page. After a discussion about why Initiative 26 doesn't make any exceptions for victims of rape or incest, one commenter wrote this:
A child conceived by rape, was probly [sic] meant to happen because hundreds if not thousands of healthy married couples can't conceive a child. Also you have good evidence to prosecute the rapist.
This comment is terrifying to me. According to the commenter, rape is simply one way to provide the world with more children for adoption.... Seriously?!?! For one thing, there are plenty of children in the world waiting to be adopted, and plenty more who are alone or neglected, uncared for and impoverished. Does any suggest finding better homes for these children? No, of course not.
Also, the comment above seems to suggest that rapes are fated to happen in order to create these children. Again, I must ask....Seriously? For one thing, he (the commenter was a male) is completely taking the blame off of the rapist. If it was his fate to rape and impregnate a woman, how can you blame him right? Wrong. A rape is a violent crime committed against another human being. It is not fate; it is not God's plan. It is simply one person taking away the rights and safety of another in order to achieve power, dominance, etc. It is not God's round-about way of putting another child on this planet.
It also bothers me that the commenter assumes that the existence of a child will inevitably lead to prosecuting a rapist. Even getting a rape accusation to be taken seriously, investigated, and to result in an arrest is an immensely difficult task that doesn't happen very often. Just because there's a child with half of the rapist's DNA doesn't mean it will lead to a conviction (or even an arrest). Perhaps the commenter has been watching too much Law and Order: SVU.
I think this comment also reveals how a large majority of our society still views rape. This commenter is not concerned at all with the rape victim. He doesn't mention her. He doesn't mention the pain this rape caused her, and the additional pain that a pregnancy would cause. This is what bothers me most about the "Why abort when you can just put up for adoption?" argument against abortion. Pregnancy is extremely difficult. Nine months is a long time. Pregnancy and child-bearing result in time off from work, unpaid leave, physical and emotional roller-coasters, and much more. Now add all that as the aftermath of a rape. Add all that onto the emotional and physical struggle to recover from being raped. Even if you know you're going to put this child up for adoption, that doesn't make the duration of pregnancy and the difficulty of childbirth any easier (in fact, I would imagine it might be harder; you know this is a child you don't want, and you are simply incubating). But, when people argue for adoption vs. abortion, they aren't even considering the toll this would take on the rape victim (or just the woman with an unwanted pregnancy). Because, in many people's minds, even today, the rape victim is somehow to blame: she was too drunk, she was wearing something slutty, she has had sex with too many men, she should have known better than to be in that bar/frat house/dark street. And the fact that so many people still think this way, and use these inaccurate stereotypes of rape victims to make a case for extreme, far-reaching legislation, is what terrifies me the most.
A child conceived by rape, was probly [sic] meant to happen because hundreds if not thousands of healthy married couples can't conceive a child. Also you have good evidence to prosecute the rapist.
This comment is terrifying to me. According to the commenter, rape is simply one way to provide the world with more children for adoption.... Seriously?!?! For one thing, there are plenty of children in the world waiting to be adopted, and plenty more who are alone or neglected, uncared for and impoverished. Does any suggest finding better homes for these children? No, of course not.
Also, the comment above seems to suggest that rapes are fated to happen in order to create these children. Again, I must ask....Seriously? For one thing, he (the commenter was a male) is completely taking the blame off of the rapist. If it was his fate to rape and impregnate a woman, how can you blame him right? Wrong. A rape is a violent crime committed against another human being. It is not fate; it is not God's plan. It is simply one person taking away the rights and safety of another in order to achieve power, dominance, etc. It is not God's round-about way of putting another child on this planet.
It also bothers me that the commenter assumes that the existence of a child will inevitably lead to prosecuting a rapist. Even getting a rape accusation to be taken seriously, investigated, and to result in an arrest is an immensely difficult task that doesn't happen very often. Just because there's a child with half of the rapist's DNA doesn't mean it will lead to a conviction (or even an arrest). Perhaps the commenter has been watching too much Law and Order: SVU.
I think this comment also reveals how a large majority of our society still views rape. This commenter is not concerned at all with the rape victim. He doesn't mention her. He doesn't mention the pain this rape caused her, and the additional pain that a pregnancy would cause. This is what bothers me most about the "Why abort when you can just put up for adoption?" argument against abortion. Pregnancy is extremely difficult. Nine months is a long time. Pregnancy and child-bearing result in time off from work, unpaid leave, physical and emotional roller-coasters, and much more. Now add all that as the aftermath of a rape. Add all that onto the emotional and physical struggle to recover from being raped. Even if you know you're going to put this child up for adoption, that doesn't make the duration of pregnancy and the difficulty of childbirth any easier (in fact, I would imagine it might be harder; you know this is a child you don't want, and you are simply incubating). But, when people argue for adoption vs. abortion, they aren't even considering the toll this would take on the rape victim (or just the woman with an unwanted pregnancy). Because, in many people's minds, even today, the rape victim is somehow to blame: she was too drunk, she was wearing something slutty, she has had sex with too many men, she should have known better than to be in that bar/frat house/dark street. And the fact that so many people still think this way, and use these inaccurate stereotypes of rape victims to make a case for extreme, far-reaching legislation, is what terrifies me the most.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Debunking Pro-26 Arguments
When people argue for Initiative 26, they tend to use some of the same arguments (lies) (misconceptions). There's the abortion is bad/abortion is murder argument. This one is hard to fight. I personally don't believe abortion is murder. Yes, I think if someone were to choose to have an abortion at 8 months, that's crossing a line. But, unlike many pro-life activists want you to believe, these late-term abortions do not happen. Elective abortions are usually happening pre-viability, or before 22 weeks into the pregnancy. I'm so tired of pro-life arguments that ignore the facts. And they have to ignore the facts if they want to sway moderate voters; they have to tug on your heartstrings, and tell you that babies about to be born are being murdered, and hope that you know so little about abortion and/or pregnancy that you will believe them. And most people don't know much about abortion or pregnancy (especially, it seems, the people making the laws: see Rachel Maddow's clip, about Mitt Romney's lack of pregnancy knowledge, here [bonus: there are pictures of Oxford's very own Save the Pill Rally]).
Another argument, along the same lines as the first, and often used by the same people, is that criminalizing abortion will reduce the number of abortions. This is not true! As I've noted in previous posts, this personhood amendment, if passed, would make many forms of hormonal birth control illegal. And, as Jack Balkin writes in What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision, "Contraception is key to reducing abortion rates: 47 percent of the 6.3 million unplanned pregnancies that occur each year in the United States occur among the 7 percent of women who do not practice contraception." Did you get that, pro-lifers? Almost half of unplanned pregnancies come from only 7 percent of women, those women who do not have knowledge about, money for, or access to birth control. So, clearly, the best way to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies (thereby, I would assume, reducing the number of abortions) is to make birth control harder to come by, with fewer varieties. Oh wait. No that's exactly the opposite of what we need to do. If we want that 7 percent of women who don't or can't use contraception to stop contributing to half of America's unplanned pregnancies, then they need health care. They need access to regular birth control, as well as emergency contraception options. And they need their civil rights as human beings, as women, and as American citizens to protect them both when they are, and when they are not, pregnant.
No matter personal opinions on abortion; this initiative simply does not make legal sense. It's bad legislation, and it's dangerous. As I've said before, giving all the rights afforded a person to a fetus makes no sense; they simply have no need for those rights, because fetuses are simply not capable of the same actions and thoughts as a person. This argument that Initiative 26 is trying to make, the argument that personhood should begin at conception, came up in the trial for Roe, and was addressed even then, almost forty years ago. Justice Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in Roe, specifically dealt with this. Balkin writes, "Blackmun responded that the fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Constitution, pointing out that in many places the Constitution referred to the rights and duties of persons that would make no sense if applied to fetuses."
Another argument, along the same lines as the first, and often used by the same people, is that criminalizing abortion will reduce the number of abortions. This is not true! As I've noted in previous posts, this personhood amendment, if passed, would make many forms of hormonal birth control illegal. And, as Jack Balkin writes in What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision, "Contraception is key to reducing abortion rates: 47 percent of the 6.3 million unplanned pregnancies that occur each year in the United States occur among the 7 percent of women who do not practice contraception." Did you get that, pro-lifers? Almost half of unplanned pregnancies come from only 7 percent of women, those women who do not have knowledge about, money for, or access to birth control. So, clearly, the best way to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies (thereby, I would assume, reducing the number of abortions) is to make birth control harder to come by, with fewer varieties. Oh wait. No that's exactly the opposite of what we need to do. If we want that 7 percent of women who don't or can't use contraception to stop contributing to half of America's unplanned pregnancies, then they need health care. They need access to regular birth control, as well as emergency contraception options. And they need their civil rights as human beings, as women, and as American citizens to protect them both when they are, and when they are not, pregnant.
No matter personal opinions on abortion; this initiative simply does not make legal sense. It's bad legislation, and it's dangerous. As I've said before, giving all the rights afforded a person to a fetus makes no sense; they simply have no need for those rights, because fetuses are simply not capable of the same actions and thoughts as a person. This argument that Initiative 26 is trying to make, the argument that personhood should begin at conception, came up in the trial for Roe, and was addressed even then, almost forty years ago. Justice Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in Roe, specifically dealt with this. Balkin writes, "Blackmun responded that the fetus was not a person within the meaning of the Constitution, pointing out that in many places the Constitution referred to the rights and duties of persons that would make no sense if applied to fetuses."
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Vote No on 26: Bishop Gray's Statement
The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi issued a statement today, expressing his concern over the personhood amendment and declaring that he does not support the initiative. Here is the statement:
My dear friends,
My deep reservations about abortion and the death penalty grow out of my abiding belief in the sanctity of human life and the arbitrary nature of these actions. I am not, however, a pacifist in regards to war. I do believe that some very serious moral decisions are not simply choices between good and evil, but rather in the case of two evils, choices between the lesser of two evils. Such is the complexity of human moral decision-making in a fallen world.
I appreciate the intentions of those who have supported Proposition 26, what has been called the Personhood Amendment. I share their passion for the sanctity of human life. However, I am gravely concerned about the unintended consequences of this legislation. The moral nightmares of doctors no longer able to give preference to saving the life of the mother in such cases as an ectopic pregnancy and the uncertain impact on in-vitro fertilization are real. Thus, the Board of Trustees of the Mississippi Medical Association has announced that it cannot support this legislation.
The legal nightmares arising from this legislation are also very real. The word “person” is used over 9,400 times in the Mississippi Annotated Code and the implications for mass confusion and decades of legal challenges over every use of the term are staggering.
For their own reasons, Roman Catholic bishops in several states, including Mississippi, have said they could not support this particular legislation.
While I recognize the complexities of such moral decisions and the need for each of us to make our own informed and prayerful choices, you need to know that I share the aforementioned concerns about the unintended consequences of this legislation. Thus, I cannot support Proposition 26 on the November 8th ballot in Mississippi.
Please feel free to share this letter with whomever you wish.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. Duncan M. Gray, III
Thank you Bishop Gray! We need more religious/political/community leaders speaking out against personhood and speaking up for women's rights!
Also, if you are in the Oxford area today, there's a rally on the Courthouse Lawn from 5-7. Come show your support for women and children everywhere!
Vote No on 26!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Weaponry or Weddings: Sexism in Magazines
I'm going to go back to my usual cultural + things I notice + feminism = a blog post formula. I'm not done advocating for personhood and the Nov. 8 vote, but I don't have much new to say tonight. Keep checking here, as well as the blog for Parents Against MS 26 and the site for Mississippians for Healthy Families, for info on the personhood initiative (and check out the video that got picked up by Rachel Maddow's blog).
So I have become obsessed with all things magazines lately. I was looking at this website I discovered, which offers reduced-price magazine subscriptions. It seems kinda sketchy, and now that I work for a publishing company, I couldn't live with myself if I purchased a subscription from anywhere but the publisher's direct website, but it is a good way to browse through categories of magazines.
Here are some of the categories:
Lifestyle
Business & Finance
Men's
Teen
Animals & Pets
Women's
...and plenty more. But of course, my eye was immediately grabbed by the "women's" category. So I clicked on it to see the subcategories, which were as follows:
Bridal & Weddings (7)
Home & Cooking (57)
Pregnancy & Family (14)
Women's Health (27)
Women's Interests (78)
Fashion & Beauty (23)
The biggest category is Women's Interests, which is, of course, also the vaguest. Clicking on it led to a huge assortment of magazines. I noticed one feminist magazine right off the bat, Bust, and there may have been more; I don't claim to know all the titles for feminist publications. But many of the magazines in this category still had standard "feminine" cover pictures: pictures of celebrities, candles looking very homey, knitting patterns, and a baby. I noticed one magazine for working women (Professional Woman's Magazine) and at least one for exercise (Runners). But by and large, women's interests still seems to center around home decorating, cooking, and looking good.
And the "men's" category is no less stereotypical. Its subcategories are as follows:
Auto (105)
Men's Fitness (13)
Men's Interests (39)
Outdoor (84)
Sports & Athletics (51)
Weaponry (18)
These categories crack me up. Weaponry? Tons of magazines with big guns on the covers.
It's amazing to me that in 2011 our magazines are still so gendered. If a woman with an interest in cars is looking for a new magazine, she has to know to click on "men's" in order to get there (which she probably will know to do, having been raised in our gender-segregated culture). And a man with an interest in cooking will have to find his magazines through the "women's" link.
I know that a lot of today's magazines have been around for years, when these gendered divisions were even more pronounced in culture. But I still think it's time to branch out. After all, out of the subcategories for women's magazines, I would only click on two (health and interests), and still may not find a magazine that interests me. And I know plenty of men who find nothing of interest in any of the male categories. Yet companies, magazines, businesses, etc., continue to market products exclusively to one gender or the other (like Dr. Pepper's new "manly" campaign).
Is this really helping products to sell when advertisers are excluding about half of the money-spending public?
Monday, October 17, 2011
Parents Against MS 26 Video
This will be a short post. Parents Against MS 26 have created a video to discuss the potential consequences of Initiative 26. Watch this video and share it with everyone you know!
Friday, October 14, 2011
The Need to Vote, Part II
I want to take at least one post to step away from personhood and discuss some of the other issues that could come up on Nov. 8.
First, along with Initiative 26, Initiative 27 will be appearing on the ballots this November. Init. 27 aims to require voters to present picture ID in order to vote. Wait, doesn't that kind of sound like the past practices of grandfather clauses, literacy tests and poll taxes that aimed to keep African-Americans from voting? Why, yes it does! The truth is that many people don't have up-to-date photo ID. For one thing, if you don't have the money for a car, is getting and keeping a current driver's license a top priority? Probably not. This bill is aimed to keep low-income people from the polls. And it could also keep women in general away from the polls. According to a post on Ms. magazine's blog, "as many as 32 million women of voting age don't have documentation with their current legal name." If you changed your name at marriage, you may not be eligible to vote! (You know, I was already thinking that if/when I get married, I would keep my last name because, let's face it, Genie doesn't sound good with any other names. But if this passes, it looks like I'll have another reason.)
Also, if you haven't already heard, the House of Representatives passed HR 358 this week. If you don't know what that is, I suggest reading this article (again, from Ms.) to get full details, but basically, it says that hospitals can refuse emergency treatment to pregnant women if they have a moral problem with it. So, if a pregnant woman comes into the hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, (a life-threatening situation when not treated, and also a situation that almost never leads to a viable pregnancy) the hospital can refuse to give her the medically necessary pregnancy termination that she needs. Not surprisingly, this has been dubbed the "Let Women Die Act." Supporters of it are calling the "Protect Life Act," though how it protects any life at all is unclear to me.
Now, it's unlikely that this bill will pass in the Senate, and if it does, President Obama has vowed to veto it. So the question is, why is it being dealt with at all? Why are legislators focusing on bills that won't become law when they could be making strides towards alleviating the economic and jobs crisis at hand? And why are legislators waging a war against women and their rights to health insurance and health care decisions?
We need to step up and vote for legislators who represent our interests. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not usually politically active and I rarely do much research on candidates. But that time is over. We need to step up, find out who's running and what their platforms are, and vote. Here in MS, we're voting for a new governor on Nov. 8. Find out about the candidates, find out what they stand for. It's time to vote. Vote for women. Vote for jobs. As Kathy Spillar at Ms. said, "Vote like your life depends on it. Because it does."
First, along with Initiative 26, Initiative 27 will be appearing on the ballots this November. Init. 27 aims to require voters to present picture ID in order to vote. Wait, doesn't that kind of sound like the past practices of grandfather clauses, literacy tests and poll taxes that aimed to keep African-Americans from voting? Why, yes it does! The truth is that many people don't have up-to-date photo ID. For one thing, if you don't have the money for a car, is getting and keeping a current driver's license a top priority? Probably not. This bill is aimed to keep low-income people from the polls. And it could also keep women in general away from the polls. According to a post on Ms. magazine's blog, "as many as 32 million women of voting age don't have documentation with their current legal name." If you changed your name at marriage, you may not be eligible to vote! (You know, I was already thinking that if/when I get married, I would keep my last name because, let's face it, Genie doesn't sound good with any other names. But if this passes, it looks like I'll have another reason.)
Also, if you haven't already heard, the House of Representatives passed HR 358 this week. If you don't know what that is, I suggest reading this article (again, from Ms.) to get full details, but basically, it says that hospitals can refuse emergency treatment to pregnant women if they have a moral problem with it. So, if a pregnant woman comes into the hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, (a life-threatening situation when not treated, and also a situation that almost never leads to a viable pregnancy) the hospital can refuse to give her the medically necessary pregnancy termination that she needs. Not surprisingly, this has been dubbed the "Let Women Die Act." Supporters of it are calling the "Protect Life Act," though how it protects any life at all is unclear to me.
Now, it's unlikely that this bill will pass in the Senate, and if it does, President Obama has vowed to veto it. So the question is, why is it being dealt with at all? Why are legislators focusing on bills that won't become law when they could be making strides towards alleviating the economic and jobs crisis at hand? And why are legislators waging a war against women and their rights to health insurance and health care decisions?
We need to step up and vote for legislators who represent our interests. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not usually politically active and I rarely do much research on candidates. But that time is over. We need to step up, find out who's running and what their platforms are, and vote. Here in MS, we're voting for a new governor on Nov. 8. Find out about the candidates, find out what they stand for. It's time to vote. Vote for women. Vote for jobs. As Kathy Spillar at Ms. said, "Vote like your life depends on it. Because it does."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Legal Personhood vs. Life
Today, I would like to discuss the difference between deciding (or believing) that life begins at conception and deciding (or believing) that legal personhood should begin at conception. This idea was brought up at a meeting I attended recently and I think it's a great way to look at and think about Initiative 26 in Mississippi.
I attended a meeting last week to hear a representative of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women speak. She discussed several important problems with Initiative 26, and then facilitated a question and answer/brainstorming about what to do next session. And someone else at the meeting mentioned this idea, the difference between when life begins and when legal personhood begins (I would credit her if I knew her name!). Basically, no one in the medical/scientific fields can reach a decision on when life begins (though the general definition for pregnancy is when the fertilized egg has implanted and not when the egg is fertilized). So if we can’t decide when life begins, how are we to decide when legal personhood begins?
David McCarty has written a great piece on the personhood amendment and what it will actually do. He makes direct reference to Mississippi’s Bill of Rights and many of the times that the word person is used. His point is that is eggs, blastocysts, zygotes and fetuses are legally persons, then all these person references will now apply to them. He then writes out many of these rights, including the phrase “including zygotes and fetuses” to point out how ridiculous it is. One example is this:
The right of every citizen, including zygotes and fetuses, to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.
Now, if you read all the comments on this page, there are people crying out for McCarty to stop discussing the ridiculous aspect of the initiative. One commenter, who wrote in several times, said,
The bottom line is that if you support legalized abortion you either don't believe a zygote/embryo/fetus is in actuality (not just the legal sense) a person, or you just don't care that abortion causes the death of a person. In that case, I probably won't change your mind about opposing prop 26. I'll be the first to admit there are going to be more legal consequences than just abortion if somehow this were passed and it survived judicial scrutiny (which it won't). By all means, if you don't believe life begins at fertilization, vote no. But don't oppose the initiative because you are afraid of giving fetuses the right to bear arms.
He wrote this comment after saying that the legal consequences of Initiative 26 are just not as bad as we Vote No-ers are making it out to be and then being proven wrong by other commenters, including Atlee Parks Breland of Parents Against 26. What bothers me is the last sentence of his comment, because it entirely misses the point of McCarty’s piece. McCarty doesn’t oppose the initiative because he’s afraid of giving fetuses the right to bear arms. I’m pretty sure that, while if this passes fetuses will technically have that right, none of us are very worried about how they will choose to exercise that right. (Pregnant women swallowing guns for their fetuses? I doubt it.) The point is that if we vote to make fertilized eggs legal persons, we are endowing them with way more rights than they can or should have. A bundle of cells inside another human being should not have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. They can’t do it, physically, emotionally or mentally, so why should we be worried about their right to do so? And of course, I know that the pro-26-ers are not worried about that right; they are worried about the “right to life” (a phrase I hate, since I am very much pro-lives and against 26) and making abortion illegal. But this initiative goes too far. That is the point of McCarty’s piece. When we are endowing rights upon creatures who are not capable of exercising them, there is a problem.
As I’ve written before, the slavery comparison keeps coming up. But Allison Korn of the NAPW made an excellent point when she spoke last week. When we gave slaves the full rights of “persons” in this country, we simply gave them rights. We did not take away rights from anyone else; those rights didn’t come at anyone’s expense. We simply expanded the legal definition of a person. But this bill is different. This bill would be expanding the definition of a person at the direct expense of women. Women would lose their rights to decisions about their bodies and their families.
This bill is not pro-life or pro-lives. Pro-lives would mean taking care of the children we have. Pro-lives means dealing with problems like inaccessible health care, high infant mortality rates, high teen pregnancy rates and high child impoverishment. If Mississippi were truly pro-lives, we would be handling those problems. By illegalizing abortion and taking rights away from women, all of these problems will get worse. That is not a pro-lives, pro-Mississippi or pro-women solution.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Personhood Amendment: Important Resources for Fighting Back
So, I've been pretty busy this week, changing up my work schedule and having to drive to Meridian tomorrow, so in the meantime I just wanted to provide y'all with articles and resources for the fight against the personhood amendment. Some you may have already seen, some maybe not, but all are worth checking out.
Also, if you're in the Oxford area, there is a fundraiser at Two Stick for Parents Against 26 and Mississippians for Healthy Families, with music and a raffle. Come show your support for MS families and vote no!
Facebook Groups (that I'm aware of) Against Personhood:
Mississippians Against Personhood Amendment
Vote No on Mississippi Amendment 26!
Ole Miss Rebels Against 26
Organizations Against Personhood:
Parents Against MS 26 (and here is their Facebook page)
Mississippians For Healthy Families (and Facebook) (and follow on Twitter @MS4HealthyFams)
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
The National Fertility Association's site for the personhood amendment
The MS Chapter of the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (this is a letter to all MS members for the Executive Committee)
Well-written Articles Against Personhood:
Life and Law: The Commitment to Pre-Embryonic Personhood by Jonathan Will, Mississippi College professor of law, The Mississippi Business Journal
Don't Make Your Morals Our Laws by Martha Simmons, The Clarion-Ledger
Ban Birth Control? They Wouldn't Dare by Katha Pollit, The Nation
The Facts About Amendment 26 by Lexi Thoman, The Daily Mississippian
A Letter from the MSMA President by Thomas E. Joiner, M.D., president of the Mississippi State Medical Association
Pregnant Women who lose babies face murder charges by Ed Pilkington, The Guardian
MS Representative John Mayo's statement against personhood
Blogs Against 26 (there would be some overlap, since Parents against 26 has a blog but is also an established organization, so this is really just blogs that are discussing MS personhood on a regular-ish basis, and may be added to as I find more):
Deep-Fried Freethinkers
To Know What We're Up Against:
The actual personhood initiative
Freda Bush's pro 26 article in The Clarion-Ledger
Personhood USA's website
These are just the ones I've taken the time to bookmark; I know I've seen and read more. Feel free to provide more links to sites, articles and blogs in the comments.
Also, if you're in the Oxford area, there is a fundraiser at Two Stick for Parents Against 26 and Mississippians for Healthy Families, with music and a raffle. Come show your support for MS families and vote no!
Facebook Groups (that I'm aware of) Against Personhood:
Mississippians Against Personhood Amendment
Vote No on Mississippi Amendment 26!
Ole Miss Rebels Against 26
Organizations Against Personhood:
Parents Against MS 26 (and here is their Facebook page)
Mississippians For Healthy Families (and Facebook) (and follow on Twitter @MS4HealthyFams)
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
The National Fertility Association's site for the personhood amendment
The MS Chapter of the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (this is a letter to all MS members for the Executive Committee)
Well-written Articles Against Personhood:
Life and Law: The Commitment to Pre-Embryonic Personhood by Jonathan Will, Mississippi College professor of law, The Mississippi Business Journal
Don't Make Your Morals Our Laws by Martha Simmons, The Clarion-Ledger
Ban Birth Control? They Wouldn't Dare by Katha Pollit, The Nation
The Facts About Amendment 26 by Lexi Thoman, The Daily Mississippian
A Letter from the MSMA President by Thomas E. Joiner, M.D., president of the Mississippi State Medical Association
Pregnant Women who lose babies face murder charges by Ed Pilkington, The Guardian
MS Representative John Mayo's statement against personhood
Blogs Against 26 (there would be some overlap, since Parents against 26 has a blog but is also an established organization, so this is really just blogs that are discussing MS personhood on a regular-ish basis, and may be added to as I find more):
Deep-Fried Freethinkers
To Know What We're Up Against:
The actual personhood initiative
Freda Bush's pro 26 article in The Clarion-Ledger
Personhood USA's website
These are just the ones I've taken the time to bookmark; I know I've seen and read more. Feel free to provide more links to sites, articles and blogs in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)