November 2009 – Page 4

Abortion and Health Care

First, a video:

Second, a must-read article, wherein Jeffrey Toobin discusses not only the implications of Stupak, but the broader problems with marginalizing abortion care:

Throughout this long legal history, the one constant has been that women have continued to have abortions. The rate has declined slightly in recent years, but, according to the Guttmacher Institute, thirty-five per cent of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they are forty-five. It might be assumed that such a common procedure would be included in a nation’s plan to protect the health of its citizens. In fact, the story of abortion during the past decade has been its separation from other medical services available to women. Abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.
…
Restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion go back to the Hyde amendment, which became law more than thirty years ago; for example, there has long been a ban on abortions under Medicaid or in military hospitals. But the implications of the Stupak amendment are broader, because of the structure of the exchange. To start with, Stupak states that anyone who buys insurance with a government subsidy cannot choose a plan that covers abortion, even if that person receives only a small subsidy, and even if only a tiny portion of the full premium goes for abortion care. And the influence of the amendment reaches beyond the recipients of federal subsidies. Stupak would prohibit the public option from offering any plans that cover abortion. Further, it is expected that each year more Americans will use the exchange, including people who don’t need subsidies, but under the Stupak amendment insurance companies would have no incentive to offer those people coverage for abortion services, since doing so might cost them the business of subsidized customers. Today, most policies cover abortion; in a post-Stupak world, they probably won’t. With a health-care plan that is supposed to increase access and lower costs, the opposite would be true with respect to abortion. And that, of course, is what legislators like Stupak want—to make abortions harder, and more expensive, to obtain. Stupak and his allies were willing to kill the whole bill to get their way; the liberals in the House were not.
…
The President is pro-choice, and he has signalled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment. But, like many modern pro-choice Democrats, he has worked so hard to be respectful of his opponents on this issue that he sometimes seems to cede them the moral high ground. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he describes the “undeniably difficult issue of abortion” and ponders “the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion.” Elsewhere, he announces, “Abortion vexes.” The opponents of abortion aren’t vexed—they are mobilized, focussed, and driven to succeed. The Catholic bishops took the lead in pushing for the Stupak amendment, and they squeezed legislators in a way that would do any K Street lobbyist proud. (One never sees that kind of effort on behalf of other aspects of Catholic teaching, like opposition to the death penalty.) Meanwhile, the pro-choice forces temporized. But, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed not long ago, abortion rights “center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.” Every diminishment of that right diminishes women. With stakes of such magnitude, it is wise to weigh carefully the difference between compromise and surrender.

Really do read it all.

In Defense of “Douchebag”

6a00e008c7b51e883400e551f295b68834-800wi

Don Hazen has an article up on AlterNet today opposing the use of “douchebag” as an insult. Douchebag, he says, is a sexist term:

I don’t see the increased use of a sexist term related to women sanitizing their vaginas as a mark of progress. The word’s street meaning, as described in the gritty urban dictionary: “The douche bag is a total moron and doesn’t think before he speaks or acts,” makes the gendered meaning all too apparent — and repugnant.

This is an argument I’ve heard before, and one that at least a handful of feminists espouse. But personally, I’m happy to see the douchebag demonized. Unlike a lot of other common insults — “bitch,” “cunt,” “retard,” “fag” — “douchebag” actually insults something that deserves to be insulted. Douching is terrible for women; it can lead to infection and irritation. Even teen magazines will tell you this! Douches exist only because women have been told that our bodies are unclean. Douches, and the bags that reportedly accompany them, are terrible, no-good products. Insulting douches doesn’t insult women — the existence of douches insults women.

The term douchebag, too, is also directed as a certain type of dude. It implies a particular parody of masculinity, or it’s the total smarm-ball. Either way, there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between douchebags and bad behavior toward women. Part of the schtick is being condescending and macho and establishing yourself as an alpha male at the expense of women (who are lesser beings by their very existence, and who exist to prop up the douchebag’s ego), and at the expense of other men. The douchebag is a classist misogynist; he’s notably different from your run-of-the-mill tool or blow-hard. Pick-up artists, for example, are most certainly douchebags.

So I say: Hate the douche. Insult the douche. Mock and vilify the douche. My only request is that when we define “douche,” we no longer use the term “feminine hygeine product.” Ain’t nothing hygenic about it.

Thanks to Adam for the link.

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

Have at it.

Trying Terrorists in Federal Court

UPDATE: Read Glenn.

I will write more about this some other day, but I wanted to point Feministe readers to the news (in case you somehow missed it) that 9/11 terror suspects will be tried in domestic courts. This is a major step forward from the days of the Bush administration, when they were sent to Guantanamo and lived in legal limbo.

Some object to terrorists being tried in United States courts because it will afford them “the same panoply of constitutional protections as U.S. citizens during their trials.” I’m unclear on why that’s a bad thing. Federal courts have tried terrorism suspects for years now, and have done a pretty solid job — even when those suspects were afforded basic constitutional protections.

The American judicial system is imperfect, and it depends on an imperfect population to render verdicts. But I’m frankly baffled as to why anyone would think that 9/11 terrorism suspects wouldn’t be treated harshly enough by a New York jury. Believe me, the jury pool that will be pulled in the Southern District will hardly be sympathetic to these guys. And the prosecutors on this case won’t be idiots, either — we’re talking about some of the most talented and seasoned lawyers out there. I imagine that the defense attorneys will be likewise intelligent and skilled. A functional adversary system demands protections for the defendant. The Constitution, and what it affords criminal defendants, are good things. Those protections seek to ensure that even when faced with an unsympathetic jury — as will be the case here — criminal defendants are entitled to basic rights. They ensure that prosecutors do their jobs thoroughly and responsibly. They ensure that we have the fairest system possible, even when any criminal justice system is going to be flawed by its very nature.

The Bush years demonstrated the contempt with which some conservatives view the American judicial system. Liberals also criticize the American justice system, but under very different terms — we want it to be more fair and just. They just don’t think it’s good enough for the “worst” criminals. That lack of confidence is kind of terrifying — if our courts aren’t good enough to try terror suspects, why are we using them to try our own citizens? I’ve written time and again about the flaws in our judicial system (and I wouldn’t mind overhauling many of our laws, which too often lead to racist outcomes; I wouldn’t mind scrapping the death penalty, which these suspects are unfortunately facing), but the idea that we need separate courts for terror suspects because the federal courts aren’t equipped to handle them? Poppycock.

The federal courts are indeed up to the task. And it’s about time that the American public (and New Yorkers in particular) actually saw some justice for what happened on 9/11. A misdirected war in Iraq and a divisive culture war at home (with New York exemplifying All Things Bad) isn’t exactly healing the wounds.

Support Sex-Positive Sex Education

support scarleteen Scarleteen is, in my view, the absolute best sex education website out there. And while I can’t claim to be entirely impartial about that assessment — I know Heather, Scarleteen’s founder, and also received a free sex education training through the site this summer — I can say that it’s an assessment I’ve held since long before I had any room for bias.

And right now, Scarleteen needs your help with their fundraising drive. You can read the full letter here, if you wish to learn about all of the things that the site has done this year, and what they plan on doing next year. But the part I want to highlight is this:

What you might not know is that Scarleteen is the highest ranked online young adult sexuality resource but also the least funded and that the youth who need us most are also the least able to donate. You might not know that we have done all we have with a budget lower than the median annual household income in the U.S. You might not know we have provided the services we have to millions without any federal, state or local funding and that we are fully independent media which depends on public support to survive and grow.

With all that Scarleteen does, they deserve a lot more.

What exactly Scarleteen does is not just provide comprehensive sex education, but provide honest, scientifically-sound, non-judgmental, sex-positive, and explicitly feminist sex education. They don’t just talk condoms and STDs — they talk sexual orientation, gender identity, relationships, sexism and double standards, abuse, masturbation, pleasure, and more. They don’t just talk about heterosexual intercourse, but about all sex acts as being equally valid and not existing in an arbitrary hierarchy of importance. And probably most importantly of all to me, they don’t just talk about sex — they include and emphasize in every single discussion of sex the importance and necessity of mutual, affirmative, and enthusiastic consent.

Those of you familiar with my writing will know that sex education is a subject that I feel very, very passionately about. You’ll also know that my standards for sex education are set a good deal higher than the standards we normally see stated in arguments favoring the bare bones of what can be considered comprehensive sex education. Scarleteen lives up to my ideal model over and over and over again. And that is something I’ve found to be very rare.

If Scarleteen is also a site near and dear to your heart, if my gushing has swayed you at all, if sex education is a subject of importance to you, or if you believe in investing in teenagers and young adults so that they become well-rounded, sexually healthy people, I urge you to make the largest gift you can:

To donate to Scarleteen by credit card, online check or via a PayPal account: click here and choose the button at the top of that page for the donation amount and style you prefer.

To donate by check or money order directly to Scarleteen: make checks payable to Scarleteen and send to: Scarleteen, 1752 NW Market Street #627, Seattle, WA, 98107.

If you would like your donation to be tax-deductible: you can donate by check or money order through The Center for Sex and Culture, a fiscal sponsor of Scarleteen online here. To mail a tax-deductible donation, make your check out to The Center for Sex and Culture, writing “For Scarleteen” in the memo. Mail that to: The Center for Sex and Culture, c/o Carol Queen, 2215-R Market Street PMB 455, San Francisco, CA, 94114. They will send a written acknowledgment of your donation to you for tax purposes, and will send us donations made to them on our behalf after deducting a very reasonable percentage.

However you choose to donate, if you want to be listed as a donor on our site, please send us an email to let us know how you’d like to be acknowledged.

And if you can’t donate — and looking at the extraordinary vet bill I paid this morning, I couldn’t possibly get that more — do your part to spread the word about an organization that we absolutely need to see continue and thrive.

cross-posted at The Curvature

Why, Hello There: A Post That Is About Introductions

You know what is awkward to write? Introduction posts! They are not about any specific thing, really. They are not serving any cause. All they are doing – I have verified this! With scientists* – is introducing someone to a blog. Namely, yourself.

My self, since you asked** quite specifically for this information, is Sady Doyle. I am a lady person! And, specifically, a lady person who is kind of awed and humbled to be interblogging before you, the readers of Feministe, today.

I love Feministe! I love the people who read Feministe! The comment threads here are always so smart! And entertaining! When I started my own little ladyblogular venture, Tiger Beatdown, Feministe and all of its many bloggers were a constant source of inspiration. And they remain so, to this day. Except that now I am also posting on their blog. Which is super.

So, I am going to assume you do not know me very well. Which, unless you read Tiger Beatdown, you probably don’t. Here are some vital facts relating to Sady Doyle:

Chris Surette: Worst Person in the World?

This may take the cake for the worst college newspaper column of all time — and that is an extremely high (or low?) bar (trigger warning on that link, and on the rest of this post).

Chris Surette is a student at Fairfield University. Chris Surette* has written what a column so bad that Fairfield University has charged the newspaper with harassment and threatened to pull their funding. The Connecticut Post characterizes the column thusly:

The controversy erupted over a satirical column in the Sept. 30 edition of The Mirror that poked fun at female students who agree to one-night stands. The “He Said” column described a female’s “walk of shame” leaving a male’s dorm, and used words like “pounding” and “hood rat” to talk guys through the morning after consensual sex.

Except Chris Surette’s column is actually worse than that — it’s basically a pro-rape manual. The point of Chris Surette’s column is that men bond over sexually humiliating women, and it’s a “victory” when everyone else sees your “victim” doing the walk of shame back to her dorm.

I’m pretty sure we don’t use words like “victim” to talk about women who engage in consenual sex. Women who are sexual victims have had something other than enthusiastic, consensual intercourse. Here’s what Chris Surette writes:

“Hooking Up for Sex: Sluts or New Feminists?”

Couldn’t make up the headline if I tried.

Things to Which I Morally Object

Since anti-choice Democrats (and Republicans) morally object to abortion care being covered by insurance — even insurance that you pay for yourself, where federal funds are separated out — I am creating a running list of Things to Which I Morally Object, all of which are in some way tangentially funded by the federal government. When these things have their federal subsidies stripped, I will shut up about abortion coverage.

1. Pepsi. Pepsi is disgusting. No self-respecting soda drinker drinks Pepsi. Everyone knows that Coke is more delicious; also, Diet Dr. Pepper.
2. Fox News. Enough said.
3. Everybody Loves Raymond. Not a funny show. In fact, it is possibly the most annoying show of all time, and it stars anti-choicer Patricia Heaton to boot.
4. Dasani. Who possibly believes that is what water tastes like? The only thing worse than Dasani is Aquafina, which is actually New Jersey tap water.
5. High-waisted jeans. No one looks good with a long pancake butt. Also, low-rise jeans; no one looks good with their crack hanging out. Butts are lovely things. Why must we do them such disservice?
6. Aerosmith. Just a terrible, terrible band. The worst, really.
7. John Mayer. Annoying, condescending, and thinks he’s deep. A bad combination.
8. Swedish Fish. Who invented those things? Ugh.
9. Long shorts on men. I really like men’s legs. Love them, actually. And I think it’s an abomination that the go-to male short is the cargo short and other below-the-knee bottoms. Really, dudes, mid-thigh is where it’s at (or shorter, if you have really spectacular gams).
10. Uggs. I have heard that Australia is a great nation — they have lovely accents which instantly make anyone sound like more fun, good ways of spelling things (love those extra “u”s), and some of the cutest animals on the planet. But if everyone else can hate America for unleashing McDonalds on the world, I can have a small bitter spot in my heart for Oz because of Uggs. Why, Oz, Why?

Add your Moral Objections in the comments.

Must-Read on Stupak

Katha hits it out of the park.

You know what I don’t want to hear right now about the Stupak-Pitts amendment banning abortion coverage from federally subsidized health insurance policies? That it’s the price of reform, and prochoice women should shut up and take one for the team. “If you want to rebuild the American welfare state,” Peter Beinart writes in the Daily Beast, “there is no alternative” than for Democrats to abandon “cultural” issues like gender and racial equality. Hey, Peter, Representative Stupak and your sixty-four Democratic supporters, Jim Wallis and other antichoice “progressive” Christians, men: why don’t you take one for the team for a change and see how you like it?

For example, budget hawks in Congress say they’ll vote against the bill because it’s too expensive. Maybe you could win them over if you volunteered to cut out funding for male-exclusive stuff, like prostate cancer, Viagra, male infertility, vasectomies, growth-hormone shots for short little boys, long-term care for macho guys who won’t wear motorcycle helmets and, I dunno, psychotherapy for pedophile priests. Men could always pay in advance for an insurance policy rider, as women are blithely told they can do if Stupak becomes part of the final bill.

President Obama, too, worries about the deficit. Maybe you could help him out by sacrificing your denomination’s tax exemption. The Catholic Church would be a good place to start, and it wouldn’t even be unfair, since the blatant politicking of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on abortion violates the spirit of the ban on electoral meddling by tax-exempt religious institutions. Why should antichoicers be the only people who get to refuse to let their taxes support something they dislike? You don’t want your tax dollars to pay, even in the most notional way, for women’s abortion care, a legal medical procedure that one in three American women will have in her lifetime? I don’t want to pay for your misogynist fairy tales and sour-old-man hierarchies.

Read it all.