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

Sam Sifton describes my ideal man.

In his review of the delicious Prime Meats, which I fear is now going to become even more crowded (the weisswurst and the spaetzle are otherwordly), Sifton describes the staff as “exceptionally well trained and efficient, a crew of handsome men and women dressed as if ready to ride horses back home to Bushwick, where they trap beaver and make their own candles.”

Sounds about right. Also sounds like a delightful one-sentence description of my ideal man.

I know we can’t all write like Sam Sifton, but give it a shot. Your attempt to paint an enchanting little portrait of your perfect mate (or friend or whatever). Go!

Tuesday LOST Roundtable: The End

Major spoilers ahead.

Jack and Kate sitting on the ground, with Hurley sitting behind them, watching. Jack is bloody and is holding his side, Kate looks concerned.

This week on Lost, the episode we’ve all been waiting for. Jack is Jesus, Hugo’s the protector, reunions made us gush, and Vincent made us cry. Read our discussion below and let us know your own thoughts and theories in the comments.

Read More…Read More…

Bits and Pieces

Tony Judt on the way we live now.

Evangelical groups are proposing “Christian-only” prisons, to be staffed with fundamentalist Christians who will indoctrinate a captive audience — and will receive public funds.

Anti-choice groups are feigning concern for the environment in their latest activism against the birth control pill.

Congresswoman Louise Capps has proposed legislation that would take steps toward reducing maternal mortality worldwide. Will the Obama administration get on board?

Meet the new “welfare queen”: The Latina mother having an “anchor baby.” Funny how those who claim to love America and our Constitution so much want to change its rules in order to exclude people who would otherwise be citizens.

Racial resentment and the conservative movement.

Is the Tea Party feminist just because there are a few women in positions of power? (Answer: No).

Spill baby spill

Love ’em or hate ’em, the women of Code Pink cannot be ignored. Their latest protest was in Houston, protesting in front of the BP headquarters, demanding accountability and change in U.S. policy toward renewable, sustainable sources of energy. H/T Susie Madrak and via ABC news:

HOUSTON (KTRK) — Activists staged a nearly naked protest to bring attention to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Code Pink protesters in Houston

Dozens of Codepink activists, in a women-led, women-initiated action, took their message to the public in front of the BP headquarters on Westlake Park Boulevard just before noon Monday.
The women posed nearly naked, dripping with ‘oil’ and dragging nets of fish.

The protesters mourned the deaths of the 11 workers and devastation of wildlife and livelihoods all along the Gulf Coast.

“At the BP headquarters we will put our bodies on the line to hold BP accountable for the rape and plunder of our planet,” says Diane Wilson, a fourth generation fisherwoman from the Gulf who joined the protest. “We call for stripping BP of its corporate charter and seizing its assets to pay the victims, clean up the Gulf and try to restore the devastated wildlife.”

They are a renewable, sustainable source of energy. Those women could keep a small town lit for days.

That’s some morality you’ve got there.

Good Medical Care

Bad medical care.

On the heels of the nun who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for saving a woman’s life comes this post about how good Catholic medical care basically involves crossing your fingers and hoping for the best. At least when it comes to women.

But the position of the church is actually born from humility, from daring to believe that God knows what he is doing. The church is not blind; she sees with eyes that are not fixated on the corporeal. Her perceived narrowness of perspective is actually so broad, it reaches into mystery. Far from being unnatural, she remains supernatural. She dares to trust that God’s plans really are “of fullness, not of harm.”

Although details are scarce, we are told there was an “urgency” to this 11-week pregnancy, and that there was a “nearly certain” risk of death to the mother. “If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it,” the hospital told The Arizona Republic. “We are convinced there was not.”

The adverb is the bugaboo. A “nearly certain, risk” is where reason, faith and ethics collide. Man trusts what man knows (in this case science and human flesh) and because he likes that illusion of control, he ignores the qualifier and calls the risk “certain.” It is easier to move on a pure certainty than on a “near” one that muddles everything up.

Having subjected these difficult, seemingly no-win situations to serious and prayerful thought, the Catholic Church gleans that—in obedience to God—this is where trust, that most difficult thing, must enter into the picture. She teaches that as we are all loved into being (and precious in the sight of God) a mother’s life, and the life of her baby, are of equal value; therefore each circumstance—and all available treatments and possible outcomes— must be individually considered.

Where both mother and child will surely perish—as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy threatening to burst a fallopian tube, or a uterine cancer or hemorrhage necessitating the whole removal of the uterus—the death of the child is a secondary (and unintentional) result of the life-saving treatment. This “indirect” abortion is made distinct from a “direct” (and therefore illicit) abortion, by intention.

This description is kind of muddled, so let me clear it up: If you have to take out a woman’s entire uterus or remove her entire fallopian tube, and there’s a fetus or a fertilized egg in there, that’s ok. But if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy that threatens to burst her fallopian tube — a pregnancy that will never result in a baby — you cannot, under Catholic doctrine, simply terminate the pregnancy. You have to remove the whole fallopian tube, so that the death of the embryo is merely incidental. It is possible, in many ectopic pregnancies, to remove the embryo without removing the tube. It’s preferable, in most cases, because it helps to preserve the woman’s fertility and, you know, doesn’t remove her entire fallopian tube unnecessarily. Catholic doctrine requires doing harm to the woman’s body if she wants to not die. Similarly, if a woman has uterine cancer, you can remove the whole uterus with the fetus in it so that the death of the fetus is incidental, but a doctor could not, for example, remove the fetus in order to operate and preserve the woman’s uterus. Some have even interpreted Catholic doctrine to say that you can’t be treated for cancer if you’re pregnant and the treatment would harm the fetus. Even if that harm is incidental.

So what happens when it’s clear that the woman is going to die if she remains pregnant, and that the only way to save her life is to end the pregnancy? Well… since you can never be totally 100% sure that someone is going to die (God could save them!), you kinda just cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Read More…Read More…

Feministe Feedback: Feminism 101 Resources

A reader writes in:

It’s clear to me that i have a lot to learn about feminism and feminist thought in general. I never was exposed to it in an academic setting (to my detriment, i fear) and i want to learn more, so that i can a. better represent a perspective that i know, deep down, is crucial and b. participate more in the conversation in a meaningful way. Besides your wonderful blog and some other online sources that i have found, can y’all recommend some Feminism 101 resources for someone who needs to explore this topic more? There are so many books, blogs, and other resources that i feel a little overwhelmed and i don’t know where to start. I know your readers would be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks for everything you do!

What are your favorite introduction-to-feminism materials, readers?

Remember you can write into Feministe Feedback by emailing feministe-at-gmail-dot-com.

Nun excommunicated for allowing dying patient to have an abortion

We covered this story already, but I want to direct your attention to this NPR article, which has a more in-depth look at the circumstances surrounding the woman terminating her pregnancy and the excommunication of the nun. When the pregnant woman showed up at the hospital, she was too ill to even be moved to an operating room; she was literally on her death bed, and would have almost definitely died without the abortion:

Last November, a 27-year-old woman was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and she was gravely ill. According to a hospital document, she had “right heart failure,” and her doctors told her that if she continued with the pregnancy, her risk of mortality was “close to 100 percent.”

The patient, who was too ill to be moved to the operating room much less another hospital, agreed to an abortion. But there was a complication: She was at a Catholic hospital.

“They were in quite a dilemma,” says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. “There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make.”

That’s some moral philosophy you’ve got there when the decision to let a fetus and a woman die or let the fetus die and keep the woman alive is “a very hard choice to make.”

But the hospital felt it could proceed because of an exception — called Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church’s ethical guidelines for health care providers — that allows, in some circumstance, procedures that could kill the fetus to save the mother. Sister Margaret McBride, who was an administrator at the hospital as well as its liaison to the diocese, gave her approval.

Let’s pause for a moment here. Yes, most (all?) hospitals have ethics committees or boards that evaluate tough cases. But here you have a dying woman whose life can be saved by a completely legal and incredibly common medical procedure; if she does not get this procedure she will die. But because the hospital is religiously affiliated, there’s a nun on the ethics board who gets to exert her moral philosophy over this patient’s right to live?

Don’t get me wrong: Sister Margaret McBride made the right decision here, and she was brave in making it. It’s abhorrent, though, that questions like this even go before a religiously-motivated ethics board in the first place. What if it was Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the man who declared Sister McBride excommunicated, who was sitting on that board? (There is no “what if.” The patient would be dead, the fetus would be dead, and four children would be orphaned).

The woman survived. When Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted heard about the abortion, he declared that McBride was automatically excommunicated — the most serious penalty the church can levy.

“She consented in the murder of an unborn child,” says the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix. “There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can’t do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means.”

Except, well, sometimes the ends do justify the means. I understand that sometimes Morality Is Hard, but this should not be. And hey, if it’s the Catholic perspective that a mother must die along with the fetus if she’s in a situation like this, then fine — pregnant Catholic women who follow this line of belief (and I’m going to guess there aren’t too many when it comes down to it) are welcome to refuse treatment, including abortion, in dire circumstances. But there’s a real conflict if a hospital adheres to a religiously-based morality system that disallows legal treatments to prevent death or physical harm — especially where there is no option of moving the patient to another hospital. If there was a hospital run by a non-Christian religious group whose belief system held that touching a member of the opposite sex was forbidden, and a girl came in and died because it was an emergency and there were no female doctors readily available, people would throw fits. And rightly so! But almost kill a patient because saving her life requires an abortion? We end up talking about how it’s a “difficult situation,” and debating whether the nun should be excommunicated.

If your “pro-life” views require that both a mother and a fetus die when it’s perfectly possible to save the mother, perhaps you should re-consider your moral judgment skills.

Thanks to Doug for the link.

Thursday LOST Roundtable: What They Died For

Spoilers below the image!

LOST Screencap. Hurley, Jack, Kate, and Sawyer (from left to right) stand in the jungle at night. Hurley holds a torch, and all of the characters look intently to their left.

This week on LOST, a candidate is finally chosen, Smokey continues his murderous spree, and Sideways Desmond continues his creepy maneuvering. Share your thoughts on the episode and remaining predictions in the comments. But no spoilers for the finale!

Read More…Read More…

Feministe Feedback: Preparing a little girl for a sexist and conformist world

A reader writes in:

You posted a question today about appropriate reading material to help an eight-year-old better understand gender expression, and I guess my question kind of piggybacks off of that: How do you prepare a little girl for the world’s reaction to her understanding of gender expression?

I have a very young niece whom I’m trying to guide (rather to her mother’s chagrin) through the pretty-pretty-princess stage into a place where she can feel comfortable expressing herself as she wants. The problem is that I know what frequently happens when a kid who bucks tradition and peer pressure: She gets targeted by her classmates for being a weirdo and ends up unhappy. At that age, the after-school special where her confidence and strength of spirit influence those around her and teach everyone a Very Valuable Lesson About Acceptance is pretty much a fantasy.

I don’t want to discourage this kid by saying, “You should always be true to yourself. The other kids will probably laugh at you, because they haven’t been encouraged to be true to themselves. But if you can endure the teasing, shunning, and physical assault for just 15 years or so, you’ll find self-actualization and satisfaction in life.” But I also don’t want to say, “Be yourself! The other kids will like you for who you are,” because anyone who’s been to a public elementary school knows that’s not the case. How do I prepare her for the real world without scaring her away from being herself?

Any advice, Feministas?

And remember that you can submit questions for Feministe Feedback to feministe-at-gmail-dot-com.