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

Month: February 2010

Utah bill would criminalize miscarriage

You know, if they were really pro-life, they would also criminalize masturbation and menstruation. Every sperm is sacred! Every egg is a potential baby!

Snark aside, I do think it’s interesting that anti-choicers will put significant effort into a bill like this and into, say, prosecuting women who use drugs while pregnant, but they do absolutely nothing about the fact that enormous numbers of fertilized eggs — unique, individual lives, they argue — naturally fail to implant and are flushed out of a woman’s body. When I bring this up with anti-choice people, they always point to the causation factor — abortion is bad because a woman takes steps to end a pregnancy. It’s the difference between murder and natural death. Prosecuting women who used drugs while pregnant and gave birth to stillborns is acceptable because the woman did something which may have ended the baby’s life (that’s scientifically debatable, but a detour from the actual point of this post, so I’ll leave it alone for now). The Utah miscarriage law is understandable because it targets women who intended to have miscarriages.

I understand that. We do hold people more culpable for things that they do on purpose; we also hold people accountable for a lot of things that they do negligently. My question, though, isn’t with the punishment aspect, but with the activism aspect. Let’s say that we take anti-choicers on their word that they really, truly believe that a fertilized egg is a unique, individual human being, and that the death of that egg is like the death of a person. If that’s the truth, then why no activism around trying to find a cure for the close to 50 percent of fertilized eggs that naturally don’t implant, and are flushed out of the woman’s body? Sure, it’s not intentional, but if there were some disease that killed 50 percent of all five-year-olds, I’m pretty sure we’d be doing something about it, no?

I realize this is all pretty far afield from the actual Utah legislation, but it’s illustrative, I think, insofar as it demonstrates that the concern here isn’t really about fetuses or life or any of that. It’s about punishing women.

Next Step Launch Party

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about these organizations geared toward creating an “old girls network” or groups that aim to train women to run for office, negotiate a promotion, manage finances, get ahead at work, that sort of thing. I’ve been personally involved in handful, the Women’s Information Network, the Woodhull Institute for Ethical Leadership, and the Women’s National Democratic Club.

So, a couple things – one, I would like to hear about more groups like these. They can be incredibly valuable. It’s been ten years since I attended the Woodhull retreat and I still regularly think about the public speaking portion. In the comments, tell us about a local women’s network you’re a part of.

Two, there’s a new group launching in DC. It’s called Next Step:

Next Step is a bipartisan professional development program geared towards young women aged 23-27 with 2-4 years of work experience and a passion for politics. Our purpose is to provide practical, hands-on training aimed at developing professional confidence and fostering the advancement of the next generation of women political leaders. These women can expect to leave the program self-assured with a thorough understanding of the professional political environment. We are the bridge to help women get from where they are to where they want to be.

The 2010 Next Step program will be held at The George Washington University from June 2-6, 2010.

They’re having a launch party here in DC on March 4, worth checking out. As a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I have to smile at their special guest Dana Perino, but hey. I’d still be very interested to talk to only the second female White House Press Secretary.

Fetuses First

Amelia, a 27-year-old Nicaraguan woman, has a ten-year-old daughter. She also has cancer and desperately needs treatment, but is being denied care because she’s pregnant. Abortion is entirely illegal in Nicaragua, even in a case like Amelia’s where she needs a therapeutic abortion to save her life. In Amelia’s case, it’s not just abortion that is being denied — it’s treatment for the cancer as well, since such treatment could harm the fetus. Amelia might die and her ten-year-old daughter may be left without her mother because of “pro-life” orthodoxy.

Women’s groups are asking for help. Please visit RH Reality Check to see the full list of contacts — and please, send emails and spread the word.

The Ladies of CPAC

Republicans would like you to know that they aren’t all old white men, and that their movement is actually really hip and young. Why? Chicks!

[Anyone have time to do a transcript?]

Amanda covered this one pretty well, but I think it’s particularly interesting that the video starts out with, “At CPAC this year, the wonks have some company: Women!” Not only are “wonks” and “women” presumably mutually exclusive, but the implication is that “women” aren’t really part of CPAC or the conservative movement — they’re more there to keep the men company. The women are there for show, but the dudes are the real event. Very nice.

Intentionally flying planes into buildings because you don’t like a particular government: Terrorism or no? Let’s debate.

Newsweek editors and reporters discuss the use of the word “terrorist” and essentially conclude that it’s mostly applicable to foreigners with beards. The conversation is an off-shoot of the story of the IRS “protestor” (as the Wall Street Journal designated him) who flew his plane into an IRS building because he didn’t like paying taxes. That guy’s daughter got a spot on Good Morning America to laud her “hero” father — although she admitted that his decision to fly a plane into a building was “inappropriate,” but “Now maybe people will have to listen” when it comes to the whole taxes-are-bad thing. (Smirky sidenote: She lives in Norway). Newly-elected Republican goldenboy Scott Brown commented that, yeah, flying planes into buildings isn’t very nice, but “people are frustrated” and “no one likes paying taxes” — plane-man just wanted greater political accountability! He was frustrated with the U.S. government’s unjust infringement on what he believed to be rightfully his. Unlike the brown people who fly planes into buildings. They’re just mad at our freedoms.

Some folks at Newsweek point out that the Underpants Bomber is more of a terrorist because he’s affiliated with a foreign terror network; the Fort Hood shooter is a terrorist too because, although he wasn’t formally affiliated with any network, he may have talked to a guy who was affiliated with terrorists. But I find Devin Gordon’s take on the media’s hesitance to use the t-word for IRS Guy to be the most convincing:

I continue to be fascinated by the divergent reactions between Austin Wacko and Underpants Man, and I think it goes much deeper than the taxonomy of what is a “terrorist.” (One simple reason: Tiger Woods didn’t step on the Underpants saga the very next day. Sigh.)

Fundamentally, I’m with Dan: a Texan white guy named Joe Stack isn’t as interesting / enraging / anxiety-inducing as a Nigerian Muslim named Abdulmutallab. I’m also with Eve: Stack’s philosophy, unlike Abdulmutallab’s, is pretty kosher with many — maybe even most — Americans. We’re basically with him right up to the burn-down-your-house-and-fly-a-plane-into-a-building part of the story. Other than that part, right on, Joe Stack! (Heck, newly minted Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown all but said as much in a very clumsy TV appearance about this story the day after it happened.)

But I’m most intrigued by a couple of things Mike suggested. First, that Abdulmutallab’s actions fit into a much larger terrorism narrative that has stretched out for years, resulted in ongoing wars and decided presidential elections. Isolated, Underpants Man’s actions are surely milder than Stack’s — it still amazes me that a man flying a plane into a building doesn’t make us flinch much more — but Stack’s actions are just that: isolated.

Then again, what if they aren’t? That’s the other thing that intrigued me about what Mike wrote: “The FBI gets skittish when you ask what they do about domestic terrorist groups because they clearly realize that the line between domestic terrorist and political dissident can sometimes be a blurry one.” One thing that could’ve stretched out this Austin Wacko story out quite a bit longer is if the mainstream media had been bolder about connecting it to the larger anti-tax political phenomenon in this country today: the Tea Party. But most of us weren’t willing to go there. Why? Because we are perceived as being dismissive and condescending toward the movement — OK, we *are* dismissive and condescending toward the movement. In short, we tend to treat them like wackos and we are gun-shy about going the full Monty and suggesting they are this close to being *violent* wackos. The FBI is skittish about that blurry line, and so is the media. Better to leave it alone and move onto Tiger Woods. Hey, how about THAT guy, huh?

We see the same thing with anti-abortion violence. Anti-choicers bomb and set fire to clinics, harass patients, and kill doctors as part of an organized movement, but most mainstream media outlets hesitate to qualify those actions as terrorism. Because, you know, those people are just frustrated and I suppose they sometimes act inappropriately in response. Plus they don’t have beards.

To recap: Flying planes into buildings = mostly bad, but maybe a little bit ok if you hate taxes. Definitely all bad if you’re Muslim.

And here I thought “Don’t fly planes into buildings, that is really bad” could be a place where we all found common ground, like Obama has been talking about.

Healthcare reform march in DC this Wednesday

I feel like I should pass this along for those of you still optimistic we can get something good through Congress… from MomsRising:

For the last week, a group of health insurance company survivors has been walking from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. in honor of Melanie Shouse, a healthcare activist, who had breast cancer and recently died because she couldn’t find affordable healthcare.

When they get to DC, we need to be there to meet them and send a message to Congress: Listen to America’s families, not the insurance companies. Pass healthcare reform that works for us, now.

Can you join us? Here are the details:

Where: In front of Union Station – Washington, DC

When: Wednesday, February 24th – 12:00 pm

Please RSVP to: donna@momsrising.org

We will meet the marchers at Union Station at 12 pm and march with them the last mile to Capitol Hill, where we’ll have a rally at the Dirksen Office Building (Room 50) with Members of Congress at 2 pm.

(Make sure to arrive a little early at Capitol Hill so you have enough time to get through security, and please don’t bring any large bags, it can slow down the process.)

We need to stand together and make sure Congress hears us! No more excuses. No more politics. We need healthcare reform now!

We’ve got to stand up and make sure they don’t turn back now, not when we’re so close.

Can you join us at this rally? It’s crucial we get this message out that Congress must get reform done, and get it done right.

Hope to see you there!

VA State Legislator: Disabled kids are a punishment from God

Well this is a new level of offensive and disgusting. At an anti-choice press conference in Virginia, staged to encourage the state legislature to pull funding from Planned Parenthood, Republican state representative Bob Marshall told the audience that:

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

…I’m unsure of what else to even say.

16 and Pregnant

Jessica Grose has a great piece up on Slate today about the MTV show 16 and Pregnant, asking whether it actually deters teenagers from pregnancy or whether it’s simply exploitative (or both). I’ll admit to watching (and enjoying, at least partly) the first season of the show, but after watching the Janelle episode that Grose mentions, I’m increasingly disturbed. No doubt teen pregnancy — and hey, any pregnancy — is tough, and that shouldn’t be whitewashed. But 16 and Pregnant seems to be falling to the trap of adapting itself to cliches and stereotypes about teen pregnancy. And while it’s a good thing to encourage girls who aren’t ready for a baby to avoid pregnancy, it gets a little trickier when you’re making an example of other girls. And as Jessica says, despite the fact that the babies’ fathers are largely total jerks (if they’re around at all), it’s the girls who are on the receiving end of the abuse and finger-wagging from the viewing audience.

In addition to all of that, 16 and Pregnant really only looks at one side of teen pregnancy — the part where the pregnant girl decides to give birth (in one episode the couple places the baby for adoption). Jessica Valenti points out that abortion is almost entirely absent from the conversation, despite the fact that a third of all teen pregnancies in the United States are terminated. I would imagine that, understandably, not a lot of 16-year-old girls want to discuss their abortions on MTV, since there is such intense stigma and shame surrounding the procedure — but surely there’s a way for MTV to incorporate the full reality of pregnancy-related decision-making into the show.

Thoughts? Do any of you watch it?