In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Month: December 2008

England Pilots Non-Prescription Birth Control Pill Program

I’m several weeks behind on this, but I still think the idea is really interesting and worth our attention. England is launching two pilot programs that allow women to obtain access to birth control pills without a prescription from a doctor:

England plans to launch two pilot programs in the London area that will provide women with nonprescription access to birth control pills, the PA/Google.com reports. The pilot programs will begin next year in the Lambeth and Southwark primary care regions of England’s National Health Service, and the results will be used to determine whether the program should be expanded across England. Under the program, women seeking nonprescription oral contraception will undergo an interview with a qualified pharmacist. Strategic health authorities — which manage local health services under NHS — will be required to provide pharmacists with sets of instructions known as patient group directions, including special directions for girls younger than age 16, the PA/Google.com reports. According to the PA/Google.com, patient group directions are required by law to dispense medications without a doctor’s prescription and currently are used for administration of emergency contraception. The directions for dispensing EC to girls younger than 16 include a mental health assessment.

I am, of course, absolutely in favor of making contraception more accessible to all women.  But like others, my immediate reaction was also to worry about some of the potential health consequences of women with risk factors having access to medication that puts them in danger.  I additionally worried that women using the pill for the first time might miss out on some of that vital counseling on how to take it and otherwise practice safer sex.

I’ve concluded that a lot of this is a fairly Americanized concern.  First of all, this kind of pharmacy system is not unusual for other types of medication in England and other countries like Australia (where I lived for a few years and have experienced the system to a small extent myself, while obtaining treatment for a yeast infection).  Further, while birth control pills certainly can cause serious complications, the risks are not particularly high when compared to other medication.  And lastly and perhaps most importantly, the women will not just be picking up a packet off the shelf at their leisure — they will still be getting consultations with medical professionals:

A Department of Health spokesperson said that the department wants “to improve women’s access to contraception and help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies without undermining patient safety” and that the pilot programs will “help to show whether supplying contraception through pharmacies is effective in reducing unintended pregnancies.” The spokesperson added, “We will be receiving quarterly updates from [strategic health authorities] on improving access to contraceptive services and will be working with them to assess the success of the schemes in their areas.” She said that women who receive contraception from a pharmacy without a prescription “can still expect a full consultation with a health professional such as a pharmacist or a nurse.”

I think a lot of it comes down to trusting women to look out for their own health (and after all, it’s just as easy to lie to a doctor as it is to lie to a nurse), and to trusting pharmacists and nurses to do their jobs.  And I think an overwhelming majority certainly can be trusted.

I’m interested to see how the pilot goes, and if all turns out well, I’d be really interested in seeing a similar program instated in the U.S.  American women could benefit from easier access to contraception even more, what with the huge additional complication of our current “you’re all on your own” health care system — where seeing a doctor isn’t just a hurdle in terms of scheduling and finding time to take off work, but also a potentially insurmountable cost.  Unfortunately, our obsession with the idea that only doctors can get any medical task done coupled with inaccessibility to them for most uninsured people is also precisely why it seems less likely to happen.

Your thoughts?

On Gaza…

Hey Feministe readers,

My name is Fauzia, I’m a recent graduate of New York University, currently living and working in Cairo. I guest-blogged here a while back (wow, actually, almost a year ago! Jeez, time flies). I’m back now, for a one-entry stint, to co-write about the situation in Gaza with my good friend Ben. If you look back at Cara’s entry, I commented a few times but ultimately became increasingly discouraged by some of the vile comments I came across. It became less about discussion and dialogue and more about saying mean and nasty things.

At the end of the fifth day of Israel’s attack on Gaza, the number of Palestinian deaths totals around 370, with about 1000 more wounded.  3 Israelis have died from rocket attacks coming from Gaza.

There are a million different sides, angles, and arguments that can be made here.  I think history plays a key role in this conflict, but I’m not going to rehash my version of the events of the last sixty years.  What I am going to do is condemn the amount of force Israel has used on the Palestinian people in the last four days.  I’m going to outright say that what I think is being done in the form of collective punishment is outrageous and horrific.

I am, however, strong believer in Israel’s right to defend itself, just like any other state.  While Israel has a moral right to respond to missile attacks coming from Gaza, what is obviously apparent and needs to be addressed is the difference in levels of power.  When one group is firing F16s and Apaches while another is firing home made missiles…I think we can all agree that this “war” is a little lopsided.  So Israel has a moral right to respond to missile attacks originating in Gaza.  So what?  Setting morality aside (yup), and ignoring useless discussion on the notion that Hamas and Fatah should recognize Israel’s right to exist, the geopolitical truth stands to prove that at no point in history has Israeli military action against the Palestinians improved the prospects for long term and lasting peace in the region.  The waging of constant military action (not necessarily all out war, but definitely DAILY military action) within the Territories has done nothing but push Palestinians further into extremism.

What would Hamas’ recognition of Israel’s right to exist mean? It would mean that Hamas would almost immediately lose power and legitimacy, and a new, more radical government would take its place.  The recognition is almost irrelevant to the peace process at this point, and is implicit in Israel’s military position and the backing of the United States, anyway.

So what does a promising solution look like to me?  A promising solution and a hope for lasting peace in the region looks like this: the entire context of the conflict must be fundamentally shifted.  That means changing public opinion in the Palestinian territories.  Hamas didn’t win because Palestinians love violence and war and enjoy living in refugee camps and walking through checkpoints every day.  Hamas won a democratic election because they created an extensive social-services network to help the needy independently of the Palestinian government.  They provided schools, hospitals, and markets.  Hamas was a strong alternative to the morally corrupt Fatah party, led by Arafat (and consequently taken over by Abbas after Arafat’s death).  Hamas was the alternative to a party led by a man who used aid to buy bowling alleys in Long Island instead of food for “his people.”  Hamas was the alternative to a party whose First Lady wore $120,000 shoes to the funeral of her husband while refugees in camps could barely afford to feed their children.  Hamas was the alternative, unfortunately.  And no, I’m not saying that terrorism and violence are ok.  I’m not sympathizing with that wing of Hamas.  I’m not ignoring the rockets launched into Israel and the deaths of innocent Israelis killed by suicide bombers.  I don’t condone those actions.  But I can understand why a family with six children, under the age of ten, struggling to survive might vote for the party that provided care for a sick mother or insulin for a diabetic child.  When your options are a corrupt party/part leader with no benefit gained for the people or a party based on a violent mission but with a wing that builds in an infrastructure…it’s not an easy choice.  But it’s a clear choice.

So what does changing Palestinian public opinion mean practically and specifically?  Well, for one, it means unilateral concessions.  Major unilateral concessions, coupled with a concerted international effort at a Marshall Plan for the Territories.  This means bringing the EU, Gulf states, Canada, Egypt, Jordan, and the United States in on a massive economic development effort in the West Bank and Gaza.  It means lifting the blockade and economic sanctions imposed on Gaza since the election of Hamas by Israel, the EU, and the United States. It means building schools and hospitals, roads and water processing plants, creating job opportunities for the Territories’ residents.  It means opening trade with Israel.

But what will those economic efforts and unilateral concessions do?  It stops the rocket attacks, for one. It creates enough of an impression that Israel is serious about peace to undermine public support for the efforts of militant radicals within Hamas (in Gaza AND Syria) to do things like, say, break the ceasefire. And once that happens, it gives leaders within Israel enough political capital to take the bolder steps necessary to establish a permanent two-state solution.  Namely, withdrawing completely from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, removing (forcibly, if necessary) the religious fanatics who occupy its illegal settlements, and ensuring the cessation of construction on further settlements.  Israel risks very little (it has the military capacity to reverse all of the above concessions, if necessary), but stands to gain greatly.

Barack Obama’s election is a unique opportunity for U.S. backing of these efforts.  Obama will have a golden window of opportunity, once he takes office, to put the United States on a course of action that makes it a meaningful and neutral moderator in the conflict, instead of a decidedly pro-Israel force that pays no more than lip service to the need for the establishment of a Palestinian state.  But that window will close rapidly as the status quo is restored in Washington, and the debate goalposts on the Israeli-Palestinian issue are restored to their accustomed place somewhere to the far right of center.  The political capital Obama currently enjoys constitutes a chance that may not come again for quite a while.  It’s a chance that Israelis and Palestinians are literally dying for.

For the last two days I’ve had online arguing matches with various Egyptian friends.  Some believe that the Palestinians are “getting what they deserve” and some have use Quranic text to justify spewing hatred against Israel while hitting me over the head with their dogma and reminding me that I’m not a “good Muslim” if I don’t agree with them.  It is not a secret that the Arab states have long used the plight of the Palestinians as a cause under which they can rally any and all Arabs and/or Muslims.  Arab leaders neglect their own human rights violations in favor of endorsing more violence in the area.  Mona Eltahawy writes brilliantly on this in her piece “Israel is the Opium of the People and Other Taboos.”

Finally, though, after all the potential solutions have been offered, I still believe that no matter what “side” of this conflict you’re on (if you’re on any side at all), what is happening in Gaza should be of concern to you if you care at all about human rights.  This unprecedented use of force serves only to fuel the fires of hatred amongst Palestinians (and Arabs).  It begins to lead us down a dangerous path that will undoubtedly send this region into complete and utter chaos.  The suicide bomber on a bicycle in Iraq who blew himself up amidst a rally for Gaza is proof of that.

Lastly,

Some people commented on Cara’s post that they’d be interested in some reading materials.  This is what I have to offer up from where I’m sitting (and I’d welcome suggestions as I’m always looking to add more to my reading list):

The best single piece on the Israeli occupation is Marwan Barghouti’s 54-point charge sheet against the State of Israel, read out in court, on October 3, 2002, in the course of the illegal trial constituted against him.  It can be found here and here (in 2 parts)

Hanan Ashrawi, This Side of Peace

Phyllis Bennis, Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer

Mahmoud Darwish, Unfortunately, It Was Paradise: Selected Poems

Amira Hass, Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege

Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity

Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 and The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949

Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and A History of Modern Palestine

Edward Said, The Question of Palestine or any of his many other books

Lynd Staughton, Editor, Homeland: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians

I’m going to do one more thing and hawk a great film called Slingshot Hiphop.  The film is a documentary, which follows various Palestinian hip hop and spoken word artists in their own form of non-violent resistance in Gaza and the West Bank.

Feminist New Year’s Resolutions

Like Samhita, I’ve never been a fan of New Year’s Resolutions.  I’ll be even more honest than that, in fact — I generally think that they’re bullshit.  But for some strange reason, maybe because despite good things happening throughout this year I’ve had a really bad past few months and need something to look forward to, I’m going to take a page out of her book anyway.

So, my feminist New Year’s Resolutions are as follows:

  1. I want to work towards writing more regularly for Feministe.
  2. Following up on my being “really” published for the first time this month (in Yes Means Yes), I’d really like to publish more writing that I actually care about.
  3. I want to make more money freelancing — both in the “things I actually care about” trade and the “bullshit copy/content writing” trade.
  4. I want to use that extra money to move.  Trust me, my personal reasons for wanting to get out of this town have a strong feminist bent.
  5. I want to spend more time listening to the voices of others working in social justice movements.

What are your New Year’s Resolutions this year, feminist or otherwise?  Or if you also hate the concept of “resolutions” . . . what to you want or hope for yourself in 2009?

Abstinence Pledges = More Unsafe Sex

Shockingly, the “Keep your legs crossed, sluts!” sex ed strategy is an epic fail.

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a “virginity pledge,” but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

I suppose abstinence-only education has one thing going for it: It threatens that sex will bring disease and unwanted pregnancy, and for abstinence-pledgers, that threat is more likely to be realized.

The U.S. government has spent more than $1.5 billion on abstinence programs. A lot of that money goes to local anti-choice and religious groups, which provide curriculum telling students that sex tears the petals off of their beautiful roses and that AIDS is spread by sweat and tears. Let’s hope Obama cuts off that gravy train quick.

Things to make your blood boil

As if the news today wasn’t depressing and soul-crushing enough, I have some more tidbits for you:

A Georgia woman was jailed for refusing to remove her hijab when entering a courtroom.

An article about a transgender golfer feeds into all kinds of gender stereotypes (the article literally ends with the line, “As a sensitive women, Lawless knows what it’s like to lose. After falling 1 yard short in the 2007 semifinals and being eliminated, she had cried. Cried herself a river, just like the girl she always wanted to be”), and the comments are full of hate and transphobia.

Female genital cutting is widespread among the Kurdish population in Iraq. Some women and girls who have had their genitals cut are speaking out. The pictures are deeply troubling, but worth a look if you can stomach it.

A lesbian woman is gang-raped in San Francisco. She appears to have been singled out because of her sexual orientation.

A Republican seeking to be the next chairman of the RNC sent out a Christmas CD to Committee members of various songs lampooning liberals, including “Barack the Magic Negro.” Please, dudes, keep it up. Catering only to old straight white men is a strategy that cannot possibly fail.

Posted in Uncategorized

Law Firm Encourages Female Employees to “Embrace Their Femininity”

Top British legal firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has hired image consultants to give their employees advice on how to dress more appropriately for the workplace. Their guidelines for women are mainly to stop being so damn masculine — oh, and slutty, too.

Female lawyers at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer have been advised to team their stilettos with skirts rather than trousers to ’embrace their femininity’.

But they can’t embrace it too much.

Necklaces, they have been warned, should be avoided as they could draw undue attention to the bustline.

That’s right, ladies! Enough with the comfort, already.  Be prettier and more womanly for us — but not too pretty.  No one likes a skank.  What, is this advice straight out of the 40s?

But hey, before you get that nice new skirt of yours all in a twist (those things can be hard to untangle in the stilettos you’re undoubtedly now wearing), be aware that while the men haven’t been admonished to dress more masculine, they have also been warned against being too sexual:

And in a bid to keep everything above board, male employees have been told not to allow their ties to hang below their belts for fear of drawing unwanted attention to their nether regions.

Uh, right.  What?

I know that I ought to be more annoyed that amused.  And I’m working hard at it.  Luckily, Sociological Images brings it back down to earth for us with an astute analysis:

A spokesman for the company doling out this advice says that it’s about being “professional.”  This is a great term to take apart.  What do we really mean when we say “professional”?

How much of it has to do with proper gender display or even, in masculinized workplaces, simply masculine display?

How much of it has to do with whiteness?  Are afros and corn rows unprofessional?   Is speaking Spanish?  Why or why not?

How much of it has to do with appearing attractive, heterosexual, monogamous, and, you know, not one of those “unAmerican” religions?

For that matter, how much of it has to do with pretending like your work is your life, you are devoted to the employer, and your co-workers are like family (anyone play Secret Santa at work this year)?

Indeed.  While this may initially seem like just yet another bit of obnoxiously run of the mill sexism, it begs an important question.  Who gets to decide what is and is not professional?  And how many layers of oppression get all wrapped up in that decision?

Thanks to Kristen for the tip.

Feministe Feedback: For a feminist starting over

A reader writes in:

Hi Feministe – I am an avid reader of your blog, but I’m not sure where to direct this question. My mother, who is in her early 50s, recently ended an abusive 20+ year marriage. In an attempt to get back on her feet again, she has been reading many self-help books for women. When I look at the literature she has chosen, I cringe. I can find nothing in this material that conveys a truly empowering, feminist message. I want to provide her with alternatives, because I’m afraid this literature (ie, Dr. Phil and company) will only serve to perpetuate cycles of abuse.

I know that you’re not a “Q and A” site, but I would love a response from an honest, trusted source.

Suggestions?

And as a reminder, you can send your Feministe Feedback questions to feministe -at- gmail -dot- com.

Posted in Uncategorized